Changes to Singapore’s legal framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil proceedings will streamline and consolidate the requirements.
With effect from 1 March 2023, Singapore has repealed the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act 1921 (RECJA) . From this date, final monetary judgments from the superior courts of Brunei, Australia, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, and the United Kingdom which were previously registrable under the RECJA should be registered under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 (REFJA).
Accordingly, parties should rely on the REFJA instead of relying on the RECJA when registering a foreign judgment in Singapore’s High Court.
Under the previous regime, the RECJA only allowed for the enforcement of money judgments, while the REFJA allows for money judgments, non-money judgments, certain interlocutory orders and civil judgments, all of which should comply with a reciprocal bilateral agreement between Singapore and each foreign country. The consolidation of countries under the RECJA into the REFJA will allow a wider range of enforcement options under the REFJA route.
In a civil case, the court may make an order or judgment in favour of a party. The party against whom the order or judgment is made is the judgment debtor.
A judgment creditor to whom a REFJA judgment applies may apply to the High Court of Singapore for registration of the judgment within six years of the date of the judgment or, if there are appeal proceedings against the judgment, after the date of the final judgment in those proceedings. Once registered, the judgment may be enforced as if it were a judgment obtained in Singapore.
The RECJA was one of three statutory regimes that previously sought to promote the enforcement of judgments obtained from foreign courts of competent jurisdictions: the other two are the REFJA and the Choice of Courts Agreement Act (CCAA). Both the RECJA and REFJA require reciprocity from their named jurisdictions. This means that those jurisdictions must have had reciprocal provisions or have entered into bilateral or multilateral treaties with Singapore.
Conversely, the CCAA gives effect to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, which supports enforcement of exclusive choice of court agreements within the named jurisdiction, and subsequent recognition and enforcement of such judgments in other contracting states.
The material difference between the RECJA / REFJA and the CCAA is that the latter will require an exclusive choice of court agreement between the parties to utilise the regime. Conversely, the REFJA (and now repealed RECJA) simply requires reciprocity from the named jurisdiction.
There is also a common law procedure with four grounds on which to recognise or five grounds to enforce foreign judgements:
It is much easier and faster to enforce a foreign judgment through the statutory regime rather than the common law regime because a foreign judgment can be enforced as long as the country or jurisdiction is named or identified under the statue. Under the common law regime, there is a risk that the opposing party to the foreign judgment may challenge its enforceability in Singapore on these grounds and more, and if the challenge is successful, will delay or even prevent its recognition or enforcement.
Co-written by Andre Choo of Pinsent Masons.