The enforcement of foreign judgments in Malaysia requires a definitive sum and recognition of jurisdiction while satisfying natural justice standards, regardless of dissatisfaction with the foreign court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Choo Kah Sing J:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff's cause of action was based on the common law rule of recognising and enforcing a foreign judgment in personam in Malaysia. This Court has heard the oral submission and read the extensive written submissions of the parties' counsels respectively. On 12 May 2021, this Court allowed the plaintiff to enter judgment against the defendant. The reasons for the decision of this Court are set out below.

Brief Background Facts

[2] The plaintiff company, an Indonesian entity, brought a civil suit against the one Muehlbauer AG (a German entity) and the defendant, a Malaysian entity, as the first and second defendants respectively, in the South Jakarta District Court (hereafter 'the District Court'). The plaintiff's suit in the District Court was premised on two causes of action, namely, breach of contract and tort of conspiracy (hereafter 'the unlawful act claim'). The latter is considered as an illegal act under Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code , Book Three - Contract, under the heading Chapter III - Contracts arising by force of law.

[3] The plaintiff's suit in the District Court stemmed from a contract dated 26 May 2011 which was entered into between the parties. In the said contract the plaintiff agreed to purchase machines, spare parts and services from the defendant worth €9.478 million. Subsequent to the said contract, the parties entered into an agreement to amend the said contract which is known as Amendment No 1 dated 13 September 2011. In the Amendment No 1 dated 13 September 2011, the parties inserted, inter alia, an arbitration clause as follows:

"In the event there is a dispute arising from the contract and this amendment between the parties, both parties agree to settle the dispute by arbitration using the ICC rules. The location of arbitration is Geneva in Switzerland. The result of arbitration is final and cannot be appealed. The party that lost in arbitration will cover the arbitration costs."

[4] On 16 February 2012, the plaintiff terminated the contract and the Amendment No 1. Flowing from the termination of the contract and the Amendment No 1, the plaintiff took out the civil suit against the defendant (and Muehlbauer AG) based on the two causes of action.

[5] At the District Court, the defendant contended that the parties had by an agreement elected arbitration as the forum to resolve any dispute arising from the contract between the parties. As such, the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the plaintiff's suit.

[6] On 6 May 2013, the District Court made an interlocutory ruling that it had the jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's suit, and directed the parties to proceed with the action on its merits. On 28 August 2013, the District Court ruled that the cause of action based on breach of contract should be determined by arbitration. With regard to the cause of action based on unlawful act claim, the District Court went ahead to make a decision. The District Court decided in favour of the plaintiff and awarded, inter alia, damages of IDR475,384,000,000.00 (approximately RM138,000,000.00+) against the defendant (and Muehlbauer AG jointly and/or severally) (hereafter the 'District Court's Judgment').

[7] Dissatisfied with the decision, the defendant appealed to the High Court of Jakarta. On 4 September 2013, the High Court of Jakarta dismissed the defendant's appeal. The defendant further appealed to the Supreme Court of Indonesia which is the highest Court in the Indonesian Court system. On. 29 March 2016, the apex Court of Indonesia dismissed the defendant's appeal. The defendant applied to the apex Court to review its decision. On 11 April 2018, the application was dismissed by the apex Court of Indonesia. Insofar as the Indonesian legal system is concerned, the defendant had exhausted all its legal avenues to challenge the District Court's judgment. Although the defendant had failed in all the attempts to challenge the decision of the