Westacre Investments Inc v Yugoimport SDPR: Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgment

The Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Westacre Investments Inc against the decision of the High Court to set aside the registration of an English Judgment against The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR. The High Court had determined that it was not just or convenient for the English Judgment to be registered. The Court of Appeal allowed Westacre's appeal, finding that it was just and convenient to enforce the English Judgment in Singapore, setting aside the High Court's order.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal allows Westacre Investments to register and enforce an English judgment against Yugoimport SDPR, a Serbian state-owned company.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (Also known as Jugoimport – SDPR)RespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Westacre Investments IncAppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lok Vi MingRodyk & Davidson LLP
Gabriel PeterGabriel Law Corporation
Kirindeep SinghRodyk & Davidson LLP
Kelvin David TanGabriel Law Corporation
Govindarajalu AsokanRodyk & Davidson LLP
Calista PeterGabriel Law Corporation
Khoo Boo JinWee Swee Teow & Co
Tan Hsuan BoonWee Swee Teow & Co
Peter ChiaWee Swee Teow & Co

4. Facts

  1. Westacre Investments Inc entered into a consultancy agreement with Yugoimport SDPR for the sale of equipment in Kuwait.
  2. Beogradska Banka DD guaranteed the payment of fees due to Westacre Investments Inc.
  3. Yugoimport SDPR repudiated the agreement, leading to arbitration proceedings.
  4. An ICC arbitral tribunal made an award in Westacre's favor for US$50,010,093.36 and £1,029,629.37 plus interest.
  5. Westacre commenced proceedings in England to enforce the award, resulting in the English Judgment.
  6. Westacre discovered a bank account in Singapore allegedly belonging to Yugoimport SDPR.
  7. Westacre applied to register the English Judgment in Singapore under the RECJA.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR, CA 141/2006, [2008] SGCA 48

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Westacre Investments Inc entered into a consultancy agreement with Yugoimport SDPR.
ICC arbitral tribunal made an award in the Appellant’s favour.
Appellant commenced proceedings in England under s 26 of the Arbitration Act 1950 (c 27) (UK) and s 3 of the Arbitration Act 1975 (c 3) (UK) for leave to enforce the Award.
A common law action on the Award itself was commenced in England.
The English High Court ruled in favour of the Appellant.
Judgment was entered in favour of the Appellant against the Respondent and Beogradska in the sum of £41,584,488.86.
Appeal by the Respondent and Beogradska to the English Court of Appeal was dismissed.
The House of Lords refused to grant leave to appeal.
An order was made by the English Court of Appeal lifting the stay of execution.
Appellant ascertained that there was a bank account in Singapore which contained funds of about US$14.8m allegedly belonging to the Respondent.
Appellant applied ex parte to register the English Judgment in Singapore pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed).
An order of court was made directing that the English Judgment be registered under the RECJA.
The Respondent applied to the High Court to set aside the registration.
Civil Appeal No 141 of 2006.
Civil Appeal No 145 of 2006.
Court heard the Respondent’s appeal on the limitation issue (ie, CA 145/2006).
Tomlinson J delivered his decision in Westacre Investments.
Second hearing of CA 141/2006.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgment
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that it was just and convenient to enforce the English Judgment in Singapore.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delay in applying for registration
      • Prejudice to the judgment debtor
      • Diligence in seeking enforcement
  2. Limitation
    • Outcome: The court found that the English Judgment did not constitute an implied contract and was not time-barred by s 6(1) of the Limitation Act.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Registration of Foreign Judgment
  2. Enforcement of Judgment
  3. Monetary Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Enforcement of Arbitral Award
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgment

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • International Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Defense
  • Banking

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Cheah Theam SweeSingapore High CourtYes[1996] 2 SLR 76SingaporeCited to explain the object and purpose of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act and to expose the conceptual fallacy of the Respondent’s contention.
Westacre Investments Inc v Yugoimport-SDPRSingapore High CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR 501SingaporeCited as the judgment under appeal, where the Judge determined that it was not just or convenient that the English Judgment be registered.
Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR 233SingaporeCited for the principles governing appeals against a judge’s exercise of discretion.
Thamboo Ratnam v Thamboo Cumarasamy and Cumarasamy Ariamany d/o KumarasaPrivy CouncilYes[1965] 1 WLR 8United KingdomCited for the presumption that a judge has rightly exercised his discretion.
Yong Tet Miaw v MBf Finance BhdSingapore Court of AppealYes[1992] 2 SLR 761SingaporeCited to explain that the words ‘just and convenient’ in s 3(1) of the RECJA cannot give an untrammelled discretion to the courts.
Dianne Margaret Quinn v Pres-T-Con LtdPrivy CouncilYes[1986] 1 WLR 1216United KingdomCounsel for the Appellant relied on this case in support of the proposition that the sole factor which a court should consider in determining whether to allow a late RECJA application was whether the judgment creditor’s delay in applying for registration had caused any prejudice to the judgment debtor. The court found that the decision in Quinn is of no assistance to this court.
Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPREnglish High CourtYes[2008] EWHC 801 (Comm)England and WalesCited as the reference proceedings where the English High Court determined that the English Judgment remained enforceable in England by way of a third-party debt order.
Ladd v MarshallEnglish Court of AppealYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited in relation to the Respondent's resistance to the application to adduce an affidavit as further evidence.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic PartySingapore Court of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR 757SingaporeCited in the context of an application to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, that a key consideration is that of diligence.
Duer v FrazerEnglish High CourtYes[2001] 1 WLR 919England and WalesCited as an English case concerning an application for leave to issue a writ of execution in England vis-à-vis a judgment obtained in Germany, providing a helpful reference point.
National Westminster Bank plc v PowneyEnglish High CourtYes[1991] Ch 339England and WalesCited in Duer v Frazer [2001] 1 WLR 919, as a case with very special circumstances.
Society of Lloyd’s v LongtinEnglish High CourtYes[2005] 2 CLC 774England and WalesCited as an English case where the same considerations as those laid down in Duer v Frazer were applied, but a different outcome was reached.
Ezekiel v OrakpoEnglish High CourtYes[1997] 1 WLR 340England and WalesCited by counsel for the Appellant, pointing out that the English Judgment was not barred from all forms of enforcement in England.
Edwards & Co v PicardEnglish Court of AppealYes[1909] 2 KB 903England and WalesCited to explain the effect of the words ‘just and convenient’.
Roberts Petroleum v. Bernard Kenny LtdHouse of LordsYes[1983] 2 AC 192United KingdomCited for the principle that a judgment creditor is in general entitled to enforce a money judgment which he has lawfully obtained against a judgment debtor by all or any of the means of execution prescribed by the relevant rules of court.
Credit Lyonnais v. SK Global Hong Kong LtdCourt of Appeal of Hong KongYes[2003] HKCA 250Hong KongCited for the principle that where a party has obtained a judgment against another party, the starting point is that the judgment creditor should be able to take all legitimate measures to enforce that judgment.

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
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 3(1)Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 3(3)(a)Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 3(3)(b)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 6(1)Singapore
Arbitration Act 1950 (c 27) (UK) s 26United Kingdom
Arbitration Act 1975 (c 3) (UK) s 3United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act
  • Commonwealth Judgment
  • Registration of Judgment
  • Enforcement of Judgment
  • Just and Convenient
  • Delay
  • Prejudice
  • Diligence
  • Garnishee Proceedings
  • Third-Party Debt Order

15.2 Keywords

  • enforcement
  • commonwealth judgment
  • registration
  • jurisdiction
  • singapore
  • foreign judgment
  • reciprocal enforcement

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Recognition of Foreign Judgments95
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments95
Civil Procedure85
Judgments and Orders70
Asset Recovery40
International Arbitration30
Arbitration30
International Commercial Law25
Foreign Law20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws
  • International Law