Navigating international disputes: enforcement of Singapore judgments in England and Wales

When it comes to the enforcement of Singapore court judgments in the UK, the applicable route depends on the circumstances in which the judgment was obtained. This turns on various factors, including the existence of a jurisdiction agreement, the issuing court, and the nature of the claim.

This article examines the requirements and procedure governing the enforcement of judgments from the courts of Singapore in the UK.

Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005

Where the parties have agreed to submit disputes to the Singapore courts on an exclusive basis, the English courts are required to recognise and enforce the resulting judgment, subject to limited grounds of refusal specified in the Hague Choice of Court Convention. Note that asymmetric jurisdiction clauses are not recognised as ‘exclusive’ for the purposes of the convention.

The Hague Choice of Court Convention only applies to exclusive choice of court agreements concluded ‘after its entry into force for the State of the chosen court’ – on or after 1 October 2016 in the case of Singapore.

The underlying dispute must fall within the convention’s civil and commercial scope, and not within excluded categories such as insolvency, employment, family law, wills, personal injury, IP, carriage of passengers, marine pollution and anti-trust matters.

The judgment must be a final decision on the merits, not interim relief, and must remain enforceable in Singapore.

Administration of Justice Act 1920

The AJA applies to final money judgments from superior courts of certain Commonwealth states, including Singapore. The AJA route would typically be considered where there is no exclusive court agreement.

An application for registration under the AJA should be made within 12 months of the judgment. Once registered, the judgment is of the same force and effect as an English judgment.

To be registrable under the AJA:

• the judgment must be final and conclusive;
• it must be for a definite sum of money;
• it must not be in respect of taxes, fines or penalties; and
• the Singapore court must have exercised jurisdiction on a basis accepted under English principles of private international law.

The grounds upon which a court may refuse registration under the AJA include the following:

• the original court acted without jurisdiction;
• the judgment debtor did not submit or agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the original court;
• the judgment debtor was not duly served with the process of the original court and did not appear;
• the judgment was obtained by fraud;
• the judgment debtor satisfies the registering court that an appeal is pending, or he is entitled and intends to appeal, against the judgment; or
• the judgment affronts UK public policy.

Common law enforcement

Where neither the Hague Choice of Court Convention nor the AJA regime apply, a Singapore judgment may be enforced at common law by bringing a claim on the judgment debt. There is no requirement at common law that the judgment must emanate from a superior court, unlike under the AJA.

For the common law regime to apply, the following must be satisfied:

• the judgment must be final and conclusive (injunctions and interim measures are not enforceable);
• the judgment must be for a debt or definite sum of money;
• the foreign court must have had jurisdiction on a territorial or consensual basis. For example, the defendant was present in Singapore at the time the proceedings were instituted or otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore court by making an appearance in the proceedings.

Procedurally the enforcing party will need to:

• issue a new claim in the UK on the Singapore judgment debt and apply for summary judgment;
• where relevant or needed, seek permission from the English court to serve proceedings on the foreign debtor.

Enforcement may be resisted on limited grounds, including that:

• the judgment was obtained by fraud;
• the judgment is contrary to English public policy. For example, some damages awards expressed as a penalty can infringe English public policy and render the judgment unenforceable;
• the judgment is contrary to the rules of natural justice, such as not having a proper opportunity to defend the claim.

Conclusion

In recent years, the UK has strengthened its economic and legal ties with Singapore, including through ongoing trade integration and its accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. There are multiple routes for enforcing Singapore judgments in the UK, although the availability and efficiency of those routes depend on the shape of the dispute and judgment. While the UK has now ratified the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, Singapore has not. For the time being, enforcement will therefore continue to rely on the existing framework discussed above.