Malaysia Marine v VLK Traders: Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act

Malaysia Marine ABD Heavy Engineering Sdn Bhd sued VLK Traders Singapore Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, appealing against the Assistant Registrar's decision to set aside the registration of a judgment from the High Court of Malaya at Johor Bahru. The Malaysian judgment was for an unpaid sum of S$740,426 for ship repairs. The High Court of Singapore dismissed the appeal, finding that the Malaysian judgment could not be registered under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act because VLK Traders did not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the Malaysian court.

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

Appeal regarding the registration of a Malaysian judgment in Singapore. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the judgment unenforceable.

1.7 Decision Date

21 November 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Malaysia Marine ABD Heavy Engineering Sdn Bhd	Plaintiff, Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Elengovan s/o V Krishnan of P Suppiah & Co P Suppiah of P Suppiah & Co
VLK Traders Singapore Pte Ltd	Defendant, Respondent	Corporation	Registration Set Aside	Won	Tan Boon Yong Thomas of Haridass Ho & Partners

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Siong Thye	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Elengovan s/o V Krishnan	P Suppiah & Co
P Suppiah	P Suppiah & Co
Tan Boon Yong Thomas	Haridass Ho & Partners

4. Facts

The Defendant contracted with the Plaintiff for ship repairs in Malaysia.
The Plaintiff performed the repairs, but a balance of S$740,426 remained unpaid.
The Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the Defendant in Malaysia.
The Plaintiff sought to register the Malaysian judgment in Singapore.
The Defendant challenged the registration, arguing lack of submission to Malaysian jurisdiction.
The Defendant did not carry on business or reside in Malaysia.
The contract was entered into via email and written correspondence.

5. Formal Citations

Malaysia Marine ABD Heavy Engineering Sdn Bhd v VLK Traders Singapore Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 593 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 354 of 2013), [2013] SGHC 253

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-09-11	High Court of Malaya at Johor Bahru granted a judgment in default of appearance.
2013-06-18	Plaintiff applied to register the Malaysian Judgment in Singapore.
2013-07-04	Singapore High Court ordered that the Malaysian Judgment be registered.
2013-08-06	Defendant filed SUM 4086 to set aside the Registering Order.
2013-10-09	Assistant Registrar allowed the application and set aside the registration.
2013-10-21	Plaintiff filed an appeal.
2013-11-22	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Enforceability of Foreign Judgment
- Outcome: The court held that the Malaysian judgment was not enforceable in Singapore because the defendant did not voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the Malaysian court.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Jurisdiction of original court
  - Submission to jurisdiction
Interpretation of 'Person' in RECJA
- Outcome: The court held that the term 'person' in s 3(2)(b) of the RECJA includes corporations, based on the Interpretation Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Application of Interpretation Act
  - Definition of judgment debtor

8. Remedies Sought

Registration of Foreign Judgment
Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Debt
Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Shipping
Marine Engineering

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
DHL Global Forwarding (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Mactus (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and others	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 170	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court's approach toward registration is a light touch approach.
United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd v Khoo Boo Hor	High Court	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR (R) 839	Singapore	Cited for the interpretation of the word 'person' in s 3(2)(b) of the RECJA and the concept of 'carrying on business' for corporations.
Sfeir & Co. v National Insurance Company of New Zealand Ltd; Aschkar & Co. v Same; Aschkar Brothers v Same	English Queen’s Bench Division	Yes	[1964] Lloyd’s Rep 330	United Kingdom	Cited to support the view that s 3(2)(b) of the RECJA and s 9(2)(b) of the UK AJA are applicable to companies.
Tunku Abaidah & Anor v Tan Boon Hoe	Malaysian court	Yes	[1935] MLJ 214	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the words 'being a person who was neither carrying on business nor ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the original Court' relates to the date on which the proceedings were instituted.
WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka	High Court	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 1088	Singapore	Cited for the principle of whether the party contesting jurisdiction of the original court had waived their objection to the jurisdiction.
Burswood Nominees Ltd v Liao Eng Kiat	High Court	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR(R) 436	Singapore	Cited for the principle that once an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court has been established, it does not matter whether the party in fact subsequently enters an appearance.
Sun-Line (Management) Ltd v Canpotex Shipping Services Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1985-1986] SLR(R) 695	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court must be express and will not be implied.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Tjong Tjui Njuk	Singapore	Yes	[1987] SLR 275	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a foreign court must be express and will not be implied.
Adams v Cape Industries Plc	N/A	Yes	[1991] 1 All ER 929	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that there must be a clear indication of consent to the exercise by the foreign court of the jurisdiction.
Ho Hong Bank Ltd v Ho Kai Neo & Anor	N/A	Yes	[1932] MLJ 76	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that service by itself does not confer jurisdiction.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 67, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act
Judgment Debtor
Jurisdiction
Submission to Jurisdiction
Carrying on Business
Default Judgment
Interpretation Act

15.2 Keywords

foreign judgment
enforcement
jurisdiction
RECJA
Singapore
Malaysia

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Recognition of Foreign Judgments	90
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments	80
Civil Procedure	60
Contract Law	50
Breach of Contract	40
Service of document out of jurisdiction	40
Asset Recovery	30

16. Subjects

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Conflict of Laws
Civil Procedure