Perwira Affin Bank v Lee Hai Pey: Enforcement of Malaysian Judgment in Singapore

Perwira Affin Bank Berhad (formerly known as Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Berhad) sought to enforce a Malaysian judgment against Mr. Tham Kwok Onn in Singapore. The High Court of Singapore, with Judith Prakash J presiding, dismissed Mr. Tham's appeal, allowing the bank to proceed with execution proceedings. The central legal issue was whether it was just and convenient to allow the foreign judgment to be enforced in Singapore, considering the protracted legal battle and previous stays of proceedings.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court considers enforcing a Malaysian judgment after a 20-year legal battle. The key issue is whether it is just and convenient to allow enforcement.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Perwira Affin Bank Berhad (formerly known as Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Berhad)PlaintiffCorporationAppeal dismissedWon
Lee Hai PeyDefendantIndividual
Tham Kwok OnnDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Leo Cheng SuanInfinitus Law Corporation
Denis TanToh Tan & Partners

4. Facts

  1. The bank obtained a judgment against Mr. Tham in Malaysia in 1988.
  2. Mr. Tham appealed the Malaysian judgment, but his appeals were ultimately dismissed.
  3. The bank sought to register the Malaysian judgment in Singapore under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act.
  4. Previous attempts to register the judgment in Singapore were set aside due to pending appeals and enforceability issues in Malaysia.
  5. The High Court of Malaya granted leave to execute the judgment against Mr Tham in 1996.
  6. Khoo J previously ordered a stay of proceedings on the third registration order pending the outcome of appeals in Malaysia.
  7. Mr. Tham's appeals in Malaysia were exhausted by 2004.

5. Formal Citations

    6. Timeline

    DateEvent
    Bank commenced action in the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur against Mr Tham.
    Judgment entered against Mr Tham in the High Court of Malaya.
    High Court of Malaya dismissed Mr Tham’s appeal.
    Bank obtained an order registering the Malaysian judgment in Singapore.
    Supreme Court of Malaysia dismissed Mr Tham’s appeal against the judgment.
    Bank applied again to register the judgment in Singapore.
    Leave was granted to the bank by the High Court of Malaya to execute the judgment against Mr Tham.
    Third registration of the Malaysian judgment was procured.
    Mr Tham’s application to set aside the third registration order was dismissed by the assistant registrar.
    Khoo J allowed Mr Tham’s appeal in part and ordered a stay of proceedings on the third registration order.
    Mr Tham’s application to the Federal Court of Malaysia for leave to appeal further to the Federal Court was dismissed.
    Bank filed an application for the third registration order to be perfected.
    Assistant registrar decided that the bank’s application should be granted.
    Order made to endorse the decision of the assistant registrar that the bank was to be at liberty to take execution proceedings to enforce the said judgment.
    Mr Tham’s appeal was dismissed.

    7. Legal Issues

    1. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
      • Outcome: The court held that it was just and convenient to allow the Malaysian judgment to be enforced.
      • Category: Substantive

    8. Remedies Sought

    1. Registration of Foreign Judgment
    2. Enforcement of Foreign Judgment

    9. Cause of Actions

    • No cause of actions

    10. Practice Areas

    • Litigation
    • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

    11. Industries

    • Banking

    12. Cited Cases

    Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
    UnknownHigh CourtYes[1998] 1 SLR 357SingaporeCited for the reason for the decision to stay proceedings on the third registration order.

    13. Applicable Rules

    Rule Name
    No applicable rules

    14. Applicable Statutes

    Statute NameJurisdiction
    Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

    15. Key Terms and Keywords

    15.1 Key Terms

    • Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act
    • Registration of Foreign Judgment
    • Stay of Proceedings
    • Enforcement of Judgment
    • Just and Convenient

    15.2 Keywords

    • foreign judgment
    • enforcement
    • registration
    • stay of proceedings
    • reciprocal enforcement
    • commonwealth judgments act

    17. Areas of Law

    Area NameRelevance Score
    Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act95
    Recognition of Foreign Judgments90
    Enforcement of Foreign Judgments80
    Civil Procedure70

    16. Subjects

    • Civil Procedure
    • Conflict of Laws
    • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments