JUDGMENT

Ian HC Chin J:

Introduction

This is an application by Wong Hai Ong ("the defendant") to set aside the registration on 24 August 1998 of a Singapore High Court judgment dated 20 May 1998 that was obtained by United Overseas Bank Limited ("the plaintiff"). The grounds of the application are stated in these terms:

(a) That the High Court Suit No. 286 of 1998 of the Republic of Singapore had no jurisdiction insofar as the defendant had never voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore prior to or during the proceedings in Suit No. 286 of 1998 and the defendant had never been resident in Singapore and he has never had an office or place of business in the Republic of Singapore.

(b) That the enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to public policy in Malaysia insofar as at all material times the defendant had, contrary to the provisions of the Exchange Control Act 1958 (Act 17) not obtained the prior written permission of the controller of the foreign exchange (who is also the governor of Bank Negara) for the opening of the account with the plaintiff and neither had the plaintiff nor the defendant obtained the prior written permission of the said controller of foreign exchange for the credit facilities granted by the plaintiff's to the defendant, As such the opening of the account and the granting of banking facilities were illegal being contrary to the provisions of the Exchange Control Act 1958 (Act 17) and contrary to public policy in Malaysia and the respective notices issued thereunder.

Another reason was put forth and argued and that was that the writ was not duly served on the defendant. My decision will be in respect of this ground and ground (a).

Facts Of Case

On 13 March 1996 the plaintiff in a letter addressed to the defendant in Kuching offered to lend the defendant USD$2 million which the defendant accepted. It was an agreed term that the defendant submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. The loan limit was on 16 December 1996 increased to USD$4 million and then on 25 March 1997 to USD$5 million. Action was then on 27 February 1998 commenced in the Singapore High Court and the writ and statement of claim were served on the defendant personally in Kuching on 3 April by the plaintiff's agent. This was after the Singapore High Court had made an order for service out of the jurisdiction in these terms:

1. The Plaintiffs have leave to serve a sealed copy of the Writ of Summons filed on 27th day of February 1998 in respect of this action on the Defendant at 2nd Floor, Lot 142, Bangunan WSK, Jalan Abell 93100, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia;

2. The time for the entry of an appearance in this action by the Defendants be 21 days after the service of the said Writ of Summons, inclusive of the day of service; and

3. The costs of this application be costs in the cause.

Judgment in default of appearance was on 20 May entered for the following sums:

(1) MYR 1,957,197-74 being the sum due and owing as at 24th February 1998 comprising the principal sum of MYR 1,954,012-43, and interest of MYR 3,185-31.

(2) Interest on the above sum of MYR 1,957,197-74 at the contractual rate comprising

(a) MYR 52,164 being interest calculated in accordance with paragraphs 4(g) to 4(i) of the Statement of Claim from 25th February 1998 to 20 May 1998

(b) Interest calculated in accordance with paragraphs 4(g) to 4(i) of the Statement of Claim from 21 May 1998 until date of full payment.

(3) Costs on a full indemnity basis.

The said judgment was, as mentioned earlier, registered in the High Court in Sabah & Sarawak. No attempt has been made by the defendant to set aside the Singapore High Court judgment.

Contentions

The first ground concerns the alleged want of jurisdiction on the part of the Singapore High Court. In this regard the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, s. 5(1)(a)(ii), provides for the setting aside of the registration of a judgment if the court is