The enforcement of foreign judgments for lawful gaming transactions is not against public policy in Malaysia.

[1] Enclosure (12) is the Judgment Debtor's application to set aside the registration of the Singapore High Court Judgment dated 8th December 2014.

[2] The Judgment Creditor opposed the Judgment Debtor's application.

The Background Facts

[3] The relevant background facts are as follows:

(i) Singapore Cause Papers

a) The Judgment Creditor filed a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim both dated 26 March 2014 against the Judgment Debtor in the Singapore High Court. Pursuant to the Singapore Court Order for Service of Document out of Singapore dated 3 April 2014, the Singapore Court granted leave to the Judgment Creditor to serve the cause papers on the Judgment Debtor in Malaysia ("the Singapore Cause Papers").

b) As attempts to effect personal service of the Singapore Cause Papers on the Judgment Debtor was not successful at the Judgment Debtor's last known addresses, the Judgment Creditor obtained a Singapore Court Order dated 10 November 2014 for substituted service of the Singapore Cause Papers.

c) After substituted service has been affected and the time prescribed for the Judgment Debtor to enter appearance has lapsed, the Judgment Creditor obtained a Judgment in Default against the Judgment Debtor in the Singapore High Court on 8 December 2014.

(ii) Order for Registration of Foreign Judgment

a) On 9 December 2014, the Judgment Creditor's solicitors in Singapore, instructed Messrs. Skrine to register the Singapore Judgment in this Court.

b) The Singapore Judgment was duly registered in the High Court of Malaya by way of an Order dated 12 February 2015 ("Order for Registration"). The Judgment Debtor was ordered to pay the following sums:

1. the sum of RM1,530,212.48 (equivalent to S$572,363.00 at the exchange rate of S$1.00 to RM2,6735 as at 8 December 2014);

2. interest in the sum of RM156,467.58 (equivalent to S$58,525.37 a the exchange rate of S$1.00 to RM2.6735 as at 8 December 2014) at the rate equal to the Singapore Interbanking Offer Rate at one, three or six months, plus 4% (whichever is higher) pursuant to Clause (h) of the terms and conditions of the Credit Agreements from 15 March 2013 to the date of judgment;

3. costs and disbursements of RM22,456.46 (equivalent to S$8,399.65 at the exchange rate of S$1.00 to RM2.6735 as at 8 December 2014) on an indemnity basis pursuant to Clause (c) of the terms and conditions of the Credit Agreements and Credit Facility Amendments;

together with further interest on the sum of RM1,530,212.48 (equivalent to S$572,363.00 at the exchange rate of S$1.00 to RM2.6735 as at 8 December 2014) at the rate of 4% per annum from 9 December 2014 to the date of full repayment).

c) The Order for Registration together with the Notice to Judgment Debtor of Registration was personally served on the Judgment Debtor on 6 May 2015.

Issues

[4] The issues for consideration are as follows:

(i) Whether the Singapore Judgment is contrary to public policy pursuant to s 5(1)(a)(v) of Reciprocal of Enforcement of Judgment Act 1958 (REJA).

(ii) Whether service of the Singapore Cause Papers is irregular.

Decision

[5] The Judgment Debtor's primary ground relied upon in this application to set aside the registration of the Singapore Judgment is that the enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to the public policy in Malaysia pursuant to s 5(1)(a)(v) of REJA.

[6] Learned counsel for the Judgment Debtor submitted that the Singapore Judgment being a judgment for a gambling debt should not be enforced as it is contrary to public policy in Malaysia.

[7] To support his contention, learned counsel for the