The doctrine of res judicata does not bar the enforcement of foreign judgments registered under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act if no public policy contravention occurs.

[1] Pursuant to s 5 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 [Act 99] ("the Act"), the respondent successfully applied, vide encl 10, to set aside an earlier order of the High Court made on 29 January 2018. By that earlier order, a judgment pronounced by the High Court of Singapore in Case No: HC/JUD 742/2017 on 15 December 2017 was registered pursuant to s 4 of the Act. This appeal is in respect of that decision made under s 5 of the Act.

[2] After hearing extensive submissions from the parties, both oral and written, and upon careful consideration of those submissions, the grounds of decision and the records of appeal, and the applicable law, we were unanimous in our decision that the learned judge had plainly erred in granting the order sought. The appeal was consequently allowed with costs, and the decision of the High Court dated 4 June 2018 was thereby set aside. These are our reasons in full.

Chronology Of Events

[3] The background events leading up to the registration of the judgment are necessary for a proper understanding and appreciation of the arguments canvassed in this appeal.

[4] On 19 June 2015, the appellants sued the respondent before the High Court in the Republic of Singapore for the recovery of RM4 million pursuant to a loan agreement dated 6 January 2015 entered into between the parties [Singapore Suit]. On 18 September 2015, the respondent filed an application before the High Court in Singapore to stay those proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens.

[5] The respondent's application was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar on 23 December 2015. The respondent's appeal was dismissed by the High Court, Singapore on 1 February 2016. The respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 29 November 2016, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed the appeal, holding that the proper forum to hear the dispute between the parties is the High Court of Singapore.

[6] Following that decision, the respondent filed his defence. The case then proceeded to full trial and a decision was rendered on 15 December 2017, in the appellants' favour. The High Court of Singapore declared the loan agreement as enforceable and the respondent was ordered to repay the appellants the sum claimed, that is, RM4 million together with interest and costs [Singapore judgment].

[7] The respondent appealed against that decision on 10 January 2018. On 16 November 2018, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed the respondent's appeal, and affirmed the decision of the High Court of Singapore in respect of the Singapore judgment.

[8] Concurrently with the Singapore Suit, on 27 April 2016, the respondent sued the appellants before the High Court sitting in Johor Bahru vide High Court Civil Suit No: JA-22NCvC-91-04-2016 [JB Suit]. In this suit, the validity and enforceability of the loan agreement was challenged together with the question of whether the appellants' entitlement to the repayment of the same sum of RM4 million. The respondent claimed inter alia that the loan agreement was a sham, and that the RM4 million was actually part payment of a deposit for the purchase of shares in Metahub Industries Sdn Bhd by the appellants.

[9] On 10 May 2016, the appellants filed an application to stay the JB Suit pending the determination and disposal of the Singapore Suit, arguing on the principle of forum non conveniens, that Singapore High Court was the more appropriate forum to hear the same dispute between the parties. This has been described by the respondent as the "forum stay". The application was dismissed on 14 February 2017.

[10] On 14 June 2017, the appellants filed a second similar application under O 45 of the Rules of 2012, this time relying on matt