Enforceability of foreign judgments requires original judgments or certified copies according to evidentiary rules, serving as pivotal evidence in court.

[1] This was a common law action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment. This course of action was necessitated by the fact that the judgment, a judgment entered in default, emanated from the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance, and the United Arab Emirates is not a reciprocating country listed under the First Schedule to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 [REJA]. The claim was allowed at the High Court and the decision was affirmed on appeal although the Court of Appeal did vary the award on the interest rate, that it was to run from the date of the judgment in Abu Dhabi instead of from the date of decision at the High Court.

[2] On 5 October 2021, leave was granted on the following questions of law:

i. Whether a foreign judgment is enforceable by a common law action in Malaysia (the foreign country not being a First Schedule country under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act 1958 ("REJA") if the judgment is not proved as a foreign judgment or order in accordance with the Evidence Act 1950 ?

ii. Whether a foreign judgment purporting to be a default judgment where liability on quantum and assessment of compensation was decreed in absentia satisfies the basic rules of fair procedure and natural justice to be enforceable by way of a common law action in the Malaysian courts?

iii. In a common law action to enforce a foreign judgment not being a First Schedule country under the REJA, without the foreign judgment being proved in accordance with Chapter V of the EA 1950, whether there is a sustainable cause of action for other evidence to be admitted and weighed?

iv. In a common law action to enforce a foreign judgment not being a First Schedule country under the REJA, whether the party responding to the common law action is limited only to the defences set out in See Hua Daily News Bhd v. Tan Thien Chin & Ors, 1985 MarsdenLR 834 ; ?

v. In a common law action to enforce a foreign judgment not being a First Schedule country under the REJA, whether the applicant suing upon that judgment as a cause of action is obliged to prove its claim on liability and quantum?

vi. Whether a non-REJA foreign judgment benefits from the same limited defences against the registration of a First Schedule REJA foreign judgment under s 5 of REJA?

Broad Facts

[3] The respondent, Conaire Engineering Sdn Bhd-LLC, is registered as a foreign company under the laws of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates while the appellants in the two appeals are registered companies in Malaysia. By a letter of understanding dated 7 May 2007, Al Tamouth Investments LLC appointed a joint-venture company, SPK-Bina Puri JV, as the main contractor for a residential, commercial and entertainment development project at Al Reem Island in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. On 14 July 2007, SPK-Bina Puri JV appointed the respondent as the subcontractor for mechanical, electrical and plumbing works in the project. Al Tamouth Investments LLC issued taking-over certificates in June 2011, certifying the project was completed subject to certain outstanding defective works. The respondent initiated legal proceedings against SPK-Bina Puri JV as well as Al Tamouth Investments LLC at the Abu Dhabi Plenary Commercial Court, a Court of First Instance.

[4] On 17 March 2015, the respondent obtained judgment of AED20,718,958.25 against SPK-Binapuri JV [Abu Dhabi Judgment]. On 11 April 2016, the respondent commenced proceedings against the two appellants to enforce the Abu Dhabi Judgment here in Malaysia. The action was premised on the Abu Dhabi Judgment.

[5] The action was resisted on several fronts. Amongst which is the lack of knowledge of the existence of the Abu Dhabi Judgment and/or the related proceedings at the Ab