Syed Ahmad Helmy J:

Enclosure 2 is the judgment creditor's summons for registration of a foreign judgment under the provisions of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ("the Act"). Similar applications have been filed by the judgment creditor in two other related action in Saman Pemula No. MT-1 24-2217 of 2002 and MT-1 24-2218 of 2002. The judgment creditor had earlier filed an action in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, which was registered as Suit No. S1194/2001/L. As the judgment debtor is ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction of the Singapore High Court, an order for leave to serve the writ in Malaysia was granted.

The judgment creditor served the writ on the judgment debtor personally on 24 December 2001. The judgment debtor thereafter retained the services of a firm of solicitors in Singapore namely, Infinitus Law Corporation. Infinitus Law Corporation filed a memorandum of appearance on the judgment debtor's behalf.

The judgment creditor thereafter proceeded to file a summons for summary judgment. The summons was heard and judgment was accordingly entered on 15 April 2002. The present application by the judgment creditor seeks to register that judgment as a judgment of this court pursuant to the provisions of the Act.

The pre-requisite for a judgment to be registered pursuant to the Act is that judgment must emanate from a superior court of a reciprocating country see - Part II of the Act, which deals with registration of judgments from reciprocating countries.

The First Schedule to the Act names the Republic of Singapore as a reciprocating country and the High Court of the Republic of Singapore is deemed to be a superior court for the purposes of Part II of the Act.

Part II of the Act applies to judgments of a superior court from a reciprocating country only if the judgments satisfy certain criteria and the criteria is spelt out in s. 3(3) of the Act, which states:

Any judgment of a superior court, other than a judgment of such a court given on appeal from a court which is not a superior court, shall be a judgment to which this Part applies, if:

(a) it is final and conclusive as between parties thereto;

(b) there is payable thereunder a sum of money, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes or other charges of a like nature or in respect of a fine or other penalty; and

(c) being a judgment from a country or territory added to the First Schedule pursuant to subsection (2), it is given after that country or territory is added to that Schedule.

When is a judgment final and conclusive as between parties thereto? Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edn) speaks of this requirement in the following manner:

The judgment which it is sought to enforce must finally and conclusively determine the rights and liabilities of the parties to it so as to be res judicata in the country where it has been pronounced (see Nouvion v. Freeman [1889] 15 App Cas I, HL; Plummer v. Woodburne[1825] 4 B & C 625; Paul v. Roy [1852] 15 Beav 433; Patrick v. Shedden [1853] 2 E & B 14).

A judgment is not final and conclusive if the court which has pronounced it has power to rescind or vary it subsequently (see Nouvion v. Freeman [1889] 15 App Cas I, HL; Re Macartney, Macfarlane v. Macartney [1921] 1 Ch 522 at 531, 532; Blohn v. Desser [1962] 2 QB 116.

In the factual matrix herein it cannot be disputed that the judgment which the judgment creditors seeks to register in this case is a summary judgment. Patently, it is a final and conclusive judgment since it conclusively determines the rights and liabilities of both parties and hence is res judicata in Singapore. There is also a sum of money payable under the judgment, which is not a sum payable in respect of taxes, or a fine or penalty. Finally, Singapore was at the time of the judgment and still continues to be listed in the First Schedule of the Act as a reciprocating country. Hence the judgment which the judgment creditor sought to register in this case is a judgme