SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 3298

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
STRONGHOLD GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
LIM CHANG HUAT – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24-83-11/2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Kwong Chiew Ee & Co ,Respondent Advocate: Kenneth Gomes,Shamelia Benedict

The enforcement of foreign judgments under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act emphasizes international comity, and participation in the foreign proceedings constitutes an acceptance of jurisdiction, rejecting claims of public policy against enforcement.

Headnote:(A) Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 - Sections 4 and 5(1) - Application to set aside the registration of a foreign judgment - Jurisdiction of foreign court upheld as debtor participated in proceedings - Public policy consideration for enforcement of foreign judgments emphasized, aiming for international comity - Claims of breach of public policy and natural justice dismissed as meritless. (Paras 2, 28, 35, 48)

(B) Jurisdiction - Submission to jurisdiction established when debtor voluntarily participates in foreign court's proceedings - The doctrine of judicial estoppel applied to prevent contradictory positions regarding law applicability. (Paras 12, 26, 39)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to set aside the registration of a Singapore judgment that ordered him to pay significant monetary amounts and costs. He argued lack of jurisdiction, application of Malaysian law, and denial of representation. The Singapore Court had previously dismissed his appeal against the judgment. (Paras 1, 6, 11)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the debtor had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore International Commercial Court, and that public policy favored registration of foreign judgments under the REJA, dismissing the application as without merit. (Paras 3, 55)

Issues: The main issues involved whether the Singapore International Commercial Court had jurisdiction, if the registration of the judgment breached Malaysian public policy, and concerns regarding representation. (Paras 2, 11, 28)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of international comity and reciprocation; it ruled that the debtor's participation in Singapore proceedings constituted submission to jurisdiction, and that claims of public policy disallowing enforcement were unsubstantiated. (Paras 4, 28, 35, 49)

Result: The application was dismissed with a cost of RM10,000.00. (Para 56)

Table of Content
1. judgment debtor's application to set aside various orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10)
2. allegations regarding jurisdiction and public policy. (Para 11)
3. court's findings on jurisdiction and participation. (Para 12 , 14 , 20 , 21 , 39)
4. public policy considerations in enforcing foreign judgments. (Para 28 , 30 , 34)
5. breach of natural justice and representation issues. (Para 35 , 36 , 52 , 54)
6. conclusion on the merit of the singapore judgment. (Para 49 , 55)
Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J:

Introduction

[1] The Judgment Debtor (JD) filed a Notice of Application dated 3 March 2024 (Enclosure 20) to seek the following orders, namely:

1.1 To set aside the registration of the Judgment from the Singapore International Commercial Court of the Republic of Singapore (SICC) dated 30 March 2023 in Case No SIC/S 1/2020 (Singapore Judgment).

1.2 To set aside the Sealed Order in the High Court Of Malaya Case No WA-24-83-11-2023 dated 2 December 2023.

1.3 To set aside the Sealed Order in the High Court Of Malaya Case No WA-24-83-11-2023 dated 2 December 2023 which states wherein it has been ordered that the above-named Applicant LIM CHANG HUAT must pay the above-named Respondent STRONGHOLD GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION):

a. amount of RM34,682,000.00; and

b. cost in the amount of SGD1,254,641.66 (which is equivalent to RM4,358,625.13 on the date the cost is assessed, which is 17 November 2023),

1.4 To set aside the Sealed Order in the High Court Of Malaya Case No WA-24-83-11-2023 dated 2 December 2023 which states the amount of RM34,682,000.00 carries interest at a rate of 5.33% per annum and pro rata from 30 September 2018 until the date of payment;

1.5 To set aside the Sealed Order in the High Court Of Malaya Case No WA-24-83-11/2023 dated 2 December 2023 which states cost in the amount of SGD1,254,641.66 (which is equivalent to RM4,358,625.13 on the date the cost is assessed, which is 17 November 2023) carries interest at a rate of 5.33% per annum from 17 November 2023 until the date of payment;

1.6 To set aside the Sealed Order in the High Court of Malaya Case No WA-24-83-11/2023 dated 2 December 2023 which states the cost of this application amounts to RM3,000.00 subject to the allocator fee paid by the Judgment Debtor to the Judgment Creditor.

[2] In essence, the matter before the Court concerns an application by the JD to aside the Registration of a Foreign Judgment (a judgment obtained by the Judgment Creditor (JC) against the JD) from the SICC dated 30 March 2023 registered on 2 December 2023 under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA) based on the ground stated in s 5(1) of the REJA.

[3] After the hearing, I dismissed the JD's application (Enclosure 20). This judgment contains the full reasons for the dismissal.

Background Facts

[4] The JC had on 30 March 2023 obtained a judgment from the S1CC in Singapore Judgment against the JD.

[5] Pursuant to the Singapore Judgment, the JD is ordered to pay the JC:

5.1 the sum of RM34,682,000.00 together with interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum and pro rata from 30 September 2018 until the date of payment; and

5.2 costs on an indemnity basis (to be assessed if not agreed upon).

[6] The JD's appeal against the Singapore Judgment was dismissed by the Singapore Court of Appeal on 13 September 2023.

[7] The JC then on 8 November 2023 filed the present OS (Enclosure 1) to register the Singapore Judgment as the judgment of the High Court of Malaya under s 4 of the REJA and O 67 r 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 ( ROC 2012).

[8] Pending the hearing of the OS (Enclosure 1), the developments pertaining to the Singapore Judgment happened. The SICC on 17 November 2023 assessed the cost of Singapore Judgment and awarded a sum of SGD1,254,641.66 (equivalent to RM4,358,625.13) and interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum from 17 November 2023 until the date of full payment in favor of JC against the JD.

[9] This Honourable Court had on 22 December 2023 made the Registration Order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top