JUDGMENT

Eusoff Chin J:

It is not disputed that the plaintiff had commenced a suit No. 164/88 in the High Court of Singapore (the original Court) against Phelim Investment Pte. Ltd., and Dato Wong Kee Tat (defendant here). On 18 October 1988, the plaintiff obtained judgment against them.

The first defendant in that suit, is a resident of Singapore, but the 2nd defendant Dato' Wong Kee Tat is resident in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

On 14 January 1989, the plaintiff applied for the original Court's judgment dated 18 October 1988, to be registered as a judgment of the High Court Malaya under s. 4 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Act 1958 (Act 99) so that it may be enforced against Dato' Wong (the defendant).

On 13 February 1989, the Senior Assistant Registrar of the High Court made an order for the registration of the judgment of the original Court. That judgment was a judgment in default of appearance, and it was for:

(1) The sums of RM4,249,936.32 (equivalent to S$3,194,240 at the exchange rate of S$100 to RM133.05 as at 18 October 1988) and RM20,855.91 (equivalent to S$15,675.24);

(2) Accrued interest of RM264,976.14 (equivalent to S$199,155.31) as at 31 December 1987 together with further interest on S$3,194,240 at 2½% per annum above the plaintiffs' effective costs of funds from 1 January 1988 to date of judgment amounting to RM311,264.17 (equivalent to S$233,945.26);

(3) Costs of RM1,000.32 (Equivalent to S$827.00);

(4) Further interest of 8% per annum is payable on the judgment debt from 18 October 1988 until date of payment.

On 24 May 1989 the defendant applied for an order to set aside the order for registration. On 16 December 1989 the Senior Assistant Registrar dismissed this application to set aside. The defendant appealed to the Judge in chambers. The grounds relied upon by the defendant are:

1. That there has been no due service of the originating process in that the defendant was never served with the writ of summons of the Court of the original jurisdiction.

2. That there has not been voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the Court of original jurisdiction.

3. That the registration was done contrary to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Act 1958.

4. That the Court of the original jurisdiction had no jurisdiction over the defendant.

5. That the enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to public policy in Malaysia in that the municipal laws of the Singapore are being enforced through these proceedings.

6. That the notice of proceedings in Singapore was not received in time to give sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend the proceedings.

7. That the defendant did not appear at the proceedings in Singapore.

8. That prior to the suit no. 164/88 the plaintiff has commenced an earlier suit and had obtained default judgment.

9. That the subject matter of the suit was a loan transaction calculated to defeat the operation of the provision of the Exchange Control Act of Malaysia.

10. That the procurement of the guarantee was not approved by the Controller of Foreign Exchange Malaysia.

The affidavit of the solicitor for the defendant stated that he was authorised by the defendant to accept the cause papers. On 6 May 1988 he had received the notice of the concurrent writ and the order for service out of jurisdiction of the original Court, from a process server. The order for service out of jurisdiction gave the defendant 21 days after the service of the notice of the concurrent writ within which he had to enter an appearance.

On 16 August 1988, the defendant's solicitor received through the post a copy of the writ of summons from the plaintiff's Singapore solicitors, together with an amended statement of claim, amending by deleting and adding certain figures in the original statement of claim but otherwise the total amount claimed, remained the same.

The defendant did not enter an appearance in the original Court within the stipulated 21 days, and on 18 October 1988 the original Court gave judgment in default of appeara