JUDGMENT

Faiza Tamby Chik J:

This is an appeal against the decision of the senior assistant registrar delivered on 6 August 1999, wherein the senior assistant registrar allowed the defendant/ judgment debtor's application by way of the Summons-in-Chambers dated 19 May 1999 (encl. 32), for inter alia an order to set aside the registration of a judgment which was obtained at the High Court of the Republic of Singapore in Suit No. 2028 of 1996 on 21 February 1997 which judgment was subsequently registered as a judgment of the High Court of Malaya by way of the order dated 23 April 1997.

The plaintiff/judgement creditor (the plaintiff) is a Singaporean national and a resident of the Republic of Singapore whilst the defendant/judgment debtor (the defendant) is a Malaysian national resident in Malaysia. On or about 22 October 1996, the plaintiff commenced action against the defendant in the Singapore High Court (Suit No. 2028 of 1996). A writ of summons and statement of claim (hereinafter referred to as "the said writ of summons") was issued against the defendant. The said writ of summons together with the order of the High Court of Singapore dated 23 October 1996 (by which the plaintiff had been given leave to serve the said writ of summons out of the jurisdiction) and the order for substituted service of the High Court of Singapore dated 18 January 1997 were subsequently served on the defendant on 30 January 1997 by way of substituted service, that is by posting the same on the front door of the defendant's office premises in Kuala Lumpur.

Thereafter, judgment in default of appearance was entered against the defendant on 21 February 1997. The judgment was duly registered as a Judgment of the High Court of Malaya by way of the order of this court on 23 April 1997 (encl. 4). The said order dated 23 April 1997 and a notice of registration of judgment dated 14 May 1997 were served on the defendant by way of personal service on 16 May 1997. No attempt has been made by the defendant to set aside the Singapore High Court judgment. In determining the validity of a judgment, the court must be satisfied that all procedural requirements of the country which issued the particular judgment in question have been complied with. In this case therefore, the court must be satisfied that service of the Singapore writ on the defendant complied with the provisions in the Singapore Rules of Court. The fact that the relevant provisions in this case are the Singapore Rules of court was acknowledged by the learned judge in United Overseas Bank Limited v. Wong Hai Ong [1999] 1 MLJ 474. With respect the learned judge in that case erred in not applying the provision of O. 11 r. 3(8)(a) of the Singapore Rules of Court by which it is provided that an originating process of Singapore may be served in accordance with r. 4. Rule 4 provides that an originating process may be served by a method of service authorised by the law of that country for service of any originating process issued by that country. It cannot be disputed that service by way of a private agent is an authorised method of service in Malaysia. It is clear therefore that the Singapore Rules of court permit the service of an originating process on a defendant in Malaysia by a private agent. In the case of United Overseas Bank Limited v. Wong Hai Ong, the learned judge did refer to O. 11 r. 3(8)(a) of the Singapore Rules of Court but proceeded to draw a distinction between processes originating in Malaysia and foreign processes. At p. 415 e-f of the report, the learned judge stated as follows:

Insofar as the Singapore O. 11 r. 3(8)(a) is concerned, it cannot be read as allowing the service of the writ in Malaysia by a private agent as that is only allowed in Malaysia in respect of processes originating in Malaysia and not to foreign process.

With respect there is no basis for such a distinction. Order 11 r. 3(8)(a) of the Singapore Rules of Court clearly permits service of a writ in Malaysia by a