Sarawak Timber v Asia Pulp: Setting Aside Registration Order Under RECJA

Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corp and State Financial Secretary Incorporated applied to register a Malaysian court order against Asia Pulp & Paper Co Ltd (APP) under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (RECJA). The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Elaine Liew AR, set aside the registration order, finding that the Malaysian order was not a 'judgment' within the meaning of the RECJA because it did not directly order the payment of money. The court held that APP's liability to pay only arose after a subsequent call was made by the liquidator, not from the order itself.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed; Registration Order and costs order set aside.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court set aside a registration order under the RECJA, finding that the Malaysian court order was not a 'judgment' for money payable.

1.7 Decision Date

26 March 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corp	Applicant	Statutory Board	Application Dismissed	Lost	Wendy Lin of WongPartnership LLP Benjamin Fong of WongPartnership LLP
State Financial Secretary Incorporated	Applicant	Government Agency	Application Dismissed	Lost	Wendy Lin of WongPartnership LLP Benjamin Fong of WongPartnership LLP
Asia Pulp & Paper Co Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Summons Allowed	Won	Mohan Gopalan of Drew & Napier LLC Adrian Tan of Drew & Napier LLC Raymond Lam of Drew & Napier LLC Ho Kheng Lian of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Elaine Liew	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Wendy Lin	WongPartnership LLP
Benjamin Fong	WongPartnership LLP
Mohan Gopalan	Drew & Napier LLC
Adrian Tan	Drew & Napier LLC
Raymond Lam	Drew & Napier LLC
Ho Kheng Lian	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

Sarawak Timber and State Financial Secretary applied to register a Malaysian court order against Asia Pulp under the RECJA.
The Malaysian order related to unpaid shares in Borneo Pulp & Paper (BPP), which was undergoing liquidation.
The Malaysian court granted leave to the liquidator to make a call on APP for RM 117 million.
The Malaysian court also ordered the assignment of the liquidator's enforcement rights to Sarawak Timber and State Financial Secretary.
The liquidator made a call on APP, but APP did not pay.
Sarawak Timber and State Financial Secretary sought to register the Malaysian order in Singapore to enforce payment.
Asia Pulp applied to set aside the registration order, arguing that the Malaysian order was not a 'judgment' for the payment of money.

5. Formal Citations

Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corp and another v Asia Pulp & Paper Co Ltd, , [2013] SGHCR 09

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1996-01-01	Borneo Pulp & Paper Sdn Bhd incorporated.
2000-05-01	New shares allotted and issued by BPP to its shareholders.
2002-01-01	BPP ordered to be wound up in Companies (Winding Up) No 28-27-2002 III(I).
2003-12-05	Liquidator filed Summons in Chambers application in CWU 28-27 (SIC 2003).
2005-08-25	Liquidator issued his final report in respect of the liquidation of BPP.
2005-08-30	Liquidator took out a Notice of Motion in CWU 28-27 (NOM 2005).
2007-05-31	SIC 2003 and NOM 2005 heard; applications granted.
2007-08-13	Liquidator made a call on APP.
2007-08-16	Call served on APP.
2012-11-15	Ex parte application granted (Registration Order).
2012-01-01	APP took out Summons No 6372/2012 to set aside the Registration Order.
2013-03-27	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Definition of 'Judgment' under RECJA
- Outcome: The court held that the Malaysian order was not a 'judgment' within the meaning of the RECJA because it did not directly order the payment of money.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether a Malaysian court order qualifies as a 'judgment' for the payment of money under the RECJA.
Extension of Time for Registration under RECJA
- Outcome: The court held that a formal application is not strictly necessary, but reasonable explanation for the delay should be provided in the supporting affidavit.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether a formal application for extension of time is required under s 3(1) of the RECJA.

8. Remedies Sought

Registration of Foreign Judgment
Monetary Payment

9. Cause of Actions

Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
Recovery of Debt

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

11. Industries

Pulp and Paper
Timber

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 1129	Singapore	Cited for the approach of scrutinising cause papers filed in foreign proceedings to ascertain the true nature of the foreign judgment.
Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR)	Court of Appeal	No	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 166	Singapore	Cited regarding the court's consideration of all circumstances when faced with a late RECJA application.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Companies Act 1965 (Act 125) (Malaysia)	Malaysia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act
Registration Order
Liquidator
Call on Shares
Contributory
Money Judgment
Setting Aside
Extension of Time

15.2 Keywords

RECJA
Foreign Judgment
Registration
Setting Aside
Money Judgment
Sarawak Timber
Asia Pulp
Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Recognition of Foreign Judgments	95
Winding Up	60
Company Law	50
Civil Procedure	40
Arbitration	30

16. Subjects

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Civil Procedure
Company Law