Global Distressed Alpha Fund v PT Bakrie: Enforcement of UK Judgment in Singapore

The High Court of Singapore heard appeals by PT Bakrie Investindo against the dismissal of its applications to set aside the registration of a UK judgment obtained by Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Limited Partnership and an order to examine Robertus Bismarka Kurniawan, a former President Commissioner of PT Bakrie. The UK judgment was obtained in relation to a guarantee governed by English law. PT Bakrie argued that registration was not just and convenient, violated public policy due to conflict with Indonesian bankruptcy law, and involved material non-disclosure by GDAF. The court dismissed the appeals, finding that PT Bakrie should have appealed the UK judgment directly and that the non-disclosures were not deliberate.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals 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 UK judgment against PT Bakrie, addressing public policy and international comity concerns. Appeal dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Limited PartnershipPlaintiff, Judgment Creditor, RespondentPartnershipAppeal WonWonHri Kumar Nair, Emmanuel Chua
PT Bakrie InvestindoDefendant, Judgment Debtor, AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLostSuresh Damodara

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Hri Kumar NairDrew & Napier LLP
Emmanuel ChuaDrew & Napier LLP
Suresh DamodaraDamodara Hazra LLP

4. Facts

  1. GDAF obtained a UK judgment against PT Bakrie.
  2. PT Bakrie entered into a Composition Plan under Indonesian bankruptcy law.
  3. The Composition Plan was ratified by the Jakarta Court.
  4. GDAF sought to register the UK judgment in Singapore.
  5. PT Bakrie argued the registration was not just and convenient.
  6. PT Bakrie argued the registration violated public policy.
  7. PT Bakrie argued GDAF failed to make full and frank disclosure.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Limited Partnership v PT Bakrie Investindo, Originating Summons No 595 of 2011/C (Registrar's Appeal Nos 392 of 2012/L and 393 of 2012/Q), [2013] SGHC 12

6. Timeline

DateEvent
PT Bakrie Investindo established.
Guarantee issued by PT Bakrie.
Issuer defaulted on loan notes.
Jakarta Court ratified the Composition Plan.
GDAF bought US$2 million worth of the notes.
UK Final Judgment released.
UK Default Costs Certificate issued.
GDAF filed OS 595.
Registration Order granted.
Registration Order served on PT Bakrie in Indonesia.
GDAF applied for an order to identify the third party who funded PT Bakrie’s defence.
Teare J granted the application.
UK IFAL Costs Order issued.
GDAF applied in OS 506 to register the UK IFAL Costs Order.
Philip Pillai J heard OS 506.
Philip Pillai J dismissed OS 506.
GDAF applied via SUM 2944.
EJD Order granted.
Kurniawan was personally served with the EJD Order.
Examination of Kurniawan adjourned.
Singapore IFAL GD issued.
Examination of Kurniawan adjourned.
PT Bakrie filed SUM 4443.
Intended examination of Kurniawan adjourned.
PT Bakrie filed SUM 4682.
SUM 4443 and 4682 dismissed by the AR.
PT Bakrie filed RA 392 and RA 393.
Appeals heard.
Examination of Kurniawan adjourned.
Appeals dismissed.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
    • Outcome: The court held that the foreign judgment should be enforced, dismissing arguments based on public policy and material non-disclosure.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Just and convenient enforcement
      • Public policy exception
      • Material non-disclosure
    • Related Cases:
      • [1992] 2 SLR(R) 549
      • [2009] 2 SLR(R) 166
      • [2010] 1 SLR 1129
      • [2002] 1 SLR(R) 515
  2. International Comity
    • Outcome: The court considered international comity but found that it did not outweigh the principle of enforcing foreign judgments, especially since the defendant had not appealed the original judgment.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Material Non-Disclosure
    • Outcome: The court found that there had been material non-disclosure but exercised its discretion not to set aside the registration order.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2012] 1 SLR 169
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Registration of Foreign Judgment
  2. Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
  3. Examination of Judgment Debtor

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Guarantee

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • International Litigation
  • Debt Recovery
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

11. Industries

  • Finance
  • Investment

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Yong Tet Miaw and another v MBF Finance BhdCourt of AppealYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 549SingaporeCited for the court's discretion to refuse registration of a foreign judgment if it is not just and convenient.
Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR)High CourtYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 166SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must consider all circumstances when deciding whether to register a foreign judgment.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Limited Partnership v PT Bakrie InvestindoHigh Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial CourtYes[2011] EWHC 256 (Comm)United Kingdom of Great BritainThe UK judgment that GDAF is seeking to enforce in Singapore.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership v Integrated Financial Advisory LtdHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHC 152SingaporeCited to show that GDAF had previously tried to register the UK IFAL Costs Order in Singapore and failed.
Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)High CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 1129SingaporeCited for the principle that the court identifies the cause of action that the judgment is based on and examines the cause of action to see whether it is contrary to the public policy of Singapore.
Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier IncCourt of AppealYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 515SingaporeCited for the principle that the court in the enforcement forum should not, and would not, investigate or rehear the merits of a foreign judgment.
Antony Gibbs & Sons v La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des MétauxCourt of AppealYes(1890) 25 QBD 399United KingdomCited for the proposition that a discharge from any debt or liability under the bankruptcy law of a foreign country outside the United Kingdom is a valid discharge in the United Kingdom only if it is a valid discharge under the law governing the contract underlying the debt or liability.
Madihill Development Sdn Bhd and another v Sinesinga Sdn Bhd (transferee to part of the assets of United Merchant Finance Bhd)High CourtYes[2012] 1 SLR 169SingaporeCited for the principle that an applicant in an ex parte application to register a judgment under the RECJA owes a duty to make full and frank disclosure.
The “Vasiliy Golovnin”High CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994SingaporeCited for the principle that the applicant must disclose all material facts, even if they might be prejudicial to the applicant’s claim.
Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng Huwah (trading as Sin Kwang Wah)High CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 786SingaporeCited for the principle that even if there has been material non-disclosure by GDAF, the court still retains a discretion not to discharge the ex parte Registration Order.
Mohamed Said bin Ali v Ka Wah BankHigh CourtYes[1989] 1 SLR(R) 689SingaporeCited for the principle that even if there has been material non-disclosure by GDAF, the court still retains a discretion not to discharge the ex parte Registration Order.
Kok Seng Chong v Bukit Turf ClubHigh CourtYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 772SingaporeCited for the principle that a more liberal attitude may be taken in relation to material non-disclosure in cases which do not involve Mareva Injunctions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 67 Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act
  • Registration Order
  • EJD Order
  • Composition Plan
  • Jakarta Court Order
  • Material Non-Disclosure
  • International Comity
  • Dormant Company
  • Guarantee
  • UK Final Judgment

15.2 Keywords

  • foreign judgment
  • enforcement
  • Singapore
  • UK judgment
  • public policy
  • international comity
  • material non-disclosure

16. Subjects

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

17. Areas of Law

  • Conflict of Laws
  • Private International Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Contract Law
  • Bankruptcy Law