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

Posted: 14/11/2024

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

The recognition and enforcement of Singapore judgments in the United Kingdom is primarily governed by the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (2005 Convention), which both countries have ratified (by comparison, the position for enforcing English judgments in Singapore is found in the Singaporean Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959). Enforcement of Singapore judgments is also permissible under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 (AJA), and the common law rules.

The 2005 Convention: application and scope

The 2005 Convention requires the courts of contracting states to uphold exclusive jurisdiction clauses, and to recognise and enforce judgments given by courts in other contracting states that are designated by such clauses. Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses are not recognised as ‘exclusive’ for the purposes of the 2005 Convention and may fall outside its scope. The 2005 Convention also only applies to exclusive choice of court agreements concluded ‘after its entry into force for the State of the chosen court’ (Art 16). For the UK, that is on or after 1 October 2015, and for Singapore, that is on or after 1 October 2016 (other contracting states to the 2005 Convention include the EU, Albania, Mexico, Montenegro, Moldova and Ukraine; while the US and China have signed the 2005 Convention, they have not yet ratified it).

The 2005 Convention does not apply to all judgments. For example, it does not apply to choice of court agreements where a natural person is acting primarily for personal, family or householder purposes (a consumer), or relating to contracts of employment (Art 2(1)). It also does not apply to matters concerning (for example): family law matters; wills; insolvency; carriage of passengers; marine pollution; anti-trust matters; personal injury; and infringement of IP rights (Art 2(2)) – nor does it apply to arbitration and related proceedings (Art 2(4)).

The 2005 Convention applies to decisions on the merits, including a decree or order, and a determination of costs or expenses by the court; it does not however apply to interim measures of protection (Art 4(1)).  

For judgments to be enforceable under the 2005 Convention in England and Wales, the foreign judgment – in this case Singaporean – must still be enforceable in the jurisdiction to which it is obtained (Art 8(3)).

The 2005 Convention: defences to enforcement

The 2005 Convention provides that a judgment given by a court of a contracting state shall be recognised and enforced, unless the grounds for refusal specified in the 2005 Convention apply (Art 8(1)). The 2005 Convention prohibits any review of the merits of the judgment given by the court of origin; the court is to be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction, unless the judgment was given by default (Art 8(2)).

The grounds upon which a court may refuse recognition or enforcement in the 2005 Convention are numerous and include the following:

• the judgment is the subject of review in the state of origin or if the time limit for seeking ordinary review has not expired (Art 8(4));
• the relevant choice of court agreement is null or void (Art 9(a));
• a party lacked capacity to conclude the agreement under the relevant law (Art 9(b));
• proceedings were not notified to the defendant in a manner that would allow it to organise a defence – unless the defendant appeared and put its case in the original court without raising this – or the proceedings were served on the defendant in breach of fundamental principles of service in the United Kingdom (Art 9(c));
• the judgment was obtained by procedural fraud (Art 9(d));
• enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with public policy in the United Kingdom (including if it is incompatible with basic principles of procedural fairness) (Art 9(f));
• the judgment is incompatible either with an earlier judgment given in the United Kingdom between the same parties, or with an earlier judgment given in another Hague Convention state between the same parties and in the same cause of action (Art 9(g)); and
• the judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered (Art 11(1)). 

Administration of Justice Act 1920: overview

The AJA applies to final money judgments from superior courts of certain Commonwealth states and British Overseas Territories, including Singapore (s9(1)); such judgments must be registered with the English court within 12 months of the date of the judgment (s9(1)). Once registered, the judgment is of the same force and effect as an English judgment (s9(3)).

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 rules: enforcement of Singapore judgments in England

Where the 2005 Convention applies, the judgment must be enforced under its provisions. Where the AJA applies, the judgment may instead be enforced under common law rules, but costs penalties may apply where the simplified registration procedure could have been used instead. Where neither regime applies, a Singaporean judgment can be enforced under the common law rules.

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;
• the judgment must not have been obtained by fraud;
• the judgment must not be 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 must not be contrary to the rules of natural justice, such as not having a proper opportunity to defend the claim.

If the six conditions above are not met, the judgment is not enforceable in England.

Common law rules: method of enforcement

Where the above conditions are met, the enforcing party will need to:

• issue a new claim in England to enforce the judgment;
• apply for summary judgment to expedite enforcement; and
• where relevant, seek permission from the English court to serve proceedings on the foreign debtor.

Conclusion

In recent years, the UK has increased ties with Singapore (for example, in March 2023 announcing that the parties were negotiating a new bilateral investment treaty as part of the UK-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and in April 2023, the UK joined the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership). The existing arrangements and treaties with Singapore facilitate a variety of methods through which Singaporean judgments can be enforced. Whereas the UK has now ratified the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (commonly known as the Hague Judgments Convention), it remains to be seen whether Singapore will also sign (and ultimately) ratify it.

Return to news headlines