Giant Light Metal v Aksa Far East: Enforcing Foreign Judgments in Singapore

In Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd (“Giant Light Metal”), the Plaintiff, sought to enforce a judgment obtained in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) against Aksa Far East Pte Ltd (“Aksa Far East”), the Defendant, for breach of contract. The High Court, presided over by Andrew Ang J, found in favor of the Plaintiff, ordering the Defendant to pay the PRC Judgment Sums, reimburse the PRC Court Fees, and pay interest. The court addressed issues of international jurisdiction and whether the PRC Judgment was for a definite sum of money.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court enforces PRC judgment for breach of contract, addressing international jurisdiction and definite sum requirements. Judgment for Plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Aksa Far East Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Paul Tan Beng HweeRajah & Tann LLP
Rebecca Chew Ming HsienRajah & Tann LLP
Lim Huay ChingRajah & Tann LLP
Goh Siong Pheck FrancisHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Loh Ern-Yu AndreaHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Samantha ShingHarry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff obtained a judgment against the Defendant in the PRC Court for breach of contract.
  2. The contract involved the purchase of generator sets by the Plaintiff from the Defendant.
  3. The Defendant filed a defence in the initial proceedings (2005 Proceedings) in the PRC Court.
  4. The initial proceedings were discontinued for out-of-court negotiations.
  5. The Plaintiff re-commenced proceedings (2008 Proceedings) for the same claim in the PRC Court.
  6. The Defendant did not participate in the 2008 Proceedings.
  7. The PRC Judgment ordered rescission of the contract, return of the generator sets, and refund of the purchase price.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte Ltd, Suit No 105 of 2012, [2014] SGHC 16

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties entered into a contract for the Plaintiff to purchase generator sets from the Defendant.
Plaintiff instituted a civil claim against the Defendant and Shanghai Yates for breach of the Contract in the PRC Court.
The 2005 Proceedings were discontinued to enable parties to attempt to resolve the matter.
Plaintiff re-commenced proceedings for the same claim against the Defendant and Shanghai Yates in the PRC Court.
Court documents for the 2008 Proceedings were served on the Defendant in Singapore.
Plaintiff obtained judgment against the Defendant in the PRC Court for breach of contract.
The PRC Judgment was served on the Defendant at its registered office in Singapore.
Deadline for the Defendant to appeal the PRC Judgment expired.
Plaintiff sent a letter of demand to the Defendant.
Plaintiff commenced action in Singapore to enforce the PRC Judgment.
Singapore High Court issued judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
    • Outcome: The court held that the PRC Court had international jurisdiction over the Defendant and that the PRC Judgment was for a definite sum of money, thus enforceable in Singapore.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • International jurisdiction of foreign court
      • Judgment for a definite sum of money
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] UKHL 56
      • [1990] Ch 433
      • [1999] 1 WLR 467
      • [2010] 1 SLR 1129
  2. International Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court found that the Defendant had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the PRC Court.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Voluntary submission to foreign court
      • Presence in foreign country
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 1 AC 236
      • [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 90

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
  2. Payment of PRC Judgment Sums
  3. Reimbursement of PRC Court Fees
  4. Interest
  5. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

11. Industries

  • Manufacturing
  • International Trade

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Clarke v Fennoscandia LtdUnited Kingdom House of LordsYes[2007] UKHL 56United KingdomCited for the principle that recognition of a judgment is a necessary primary concern before enforcement.
Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and othersUnited Kingdom Supreme CourtYes[2013] 1 AC 236United KingdomCited for the principle that the characterisation of whether there has been a submission for the purposes of the enforcement of foreign judgments in England depends on English law.
Adams and others v Cape Industries Plc and anotherEnglish High CourtYes[1990] Ch 433EnglandDiscussed in relation to the principle of submission to jurisdiction and the 'one unit of litigation' theory, but distinguished on the facts.
WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri LankaSingapore High CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 1088SingaporeCited for the principle that a party submits to jurisdiction by taking a step in proceedings that necessarily involves waiving their objection to jurisdiction.
Akai Pty Ltd v People’s Insurance Co LtdEnglish High CourtYes[1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 90EnglandCited for the approach to determining whether there was submission for the purposes of international jurisdiction.
Murthy and another v Sivajothi and othersEnglish Court of AppealYes[1999] 1 WLR 467EnglandCited for the principle that submission to jurisdiction in respect of a claim can extend to related claims.
Lawrence Robert Whyte v Marsha WhyteEnglish Court of AppealYes[2005] EWCA Civ 858EnglandApplied the principle in Murthy regarding submission to jurisdiction extending to related claims.
Joint Stock Company “Aeroflot – Russian Airlines” v Boris Abramovich Berezovsky and anotherEnglish High CourtYes[2012] EWHC 3017 (Ch)EnglandApplied the principle in Murthy regarding submission to jurisdiction extending to related claims.
Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)Court of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 1129SingaporeCited for the requirement that an enforceable foreign judgment must be for a pure money judgment.
Buchanan v RuckerN/AYes(1808) 9 East 192EnglandCited for the principle that the common law is generally not concerned with how the foreign court had assumed jurisdiction over the party under its own laws.
Godard v GrayN/AYes(1870-71) LR 6 QB 139EnglandCited for the principle that the validity of a foreign judgment will not be scrutinised if the requirements for recognition and enforcement are met.
Ralli and another v AnguillaStraits Settlement Court of AppealYes[1915–23] XV SSLR 33SingaporeCited for the principle that the validity of a foreign judgment will not be scrutinised if the requirements for recognition and enforcement are met.
Russell v SmythN/AYes(1842) 9 M & W 810EnglandCited for the principle that an action in assumpsit or debt may be brought against a defendant for costs awarded against him in a foreign judgment.
Raulin v FischerN/AYes[1911] 2 KB 93EnglandCited for the doctrine that objectionable parts of a foreign judgment could be severed from the rest of the judgment such that the unobjectionable parts of the judgment may be enforced.
Huntington v AttrillN/AYes[1893] AC 150EnglandCited for the principle that a foreign penal law was unenforceable under private international law.
United States of America v InkleyN/AYes[1989] QB 255EnglandCited for the principle that a foreign penal law was unenforceable under private international law.
Lewis v Eliades and othersEnglish Court of AppealYes[2004] 1 WLR 692EnglandCited for the doctrine that objectionable parts of a foreign judgment could be severed from the rest of the judgment such that the unobjectionable parts of the judgment may be enforced.
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler LtdN/AYes[1967] 1 AC 853EnglandCited for the proposition that the foreign law (and not the lex fori) determines whether a foreign judgment is final and conclusive for the purposes of recognition and enforcement.
Colt Industries Inc v Sarlie (No 2)N/AYes[1966] 1 WLR 1287EnglandCited for the proposition that the foreign law (and not the lex fori) determines whether a foreign judgment is final and conclusive for the purposes of recognition and enforcement.
Beatty v BeattyEnglish Court of AppealYes[1924] 1 KB 807 (CA)EnglandCited for the proposition that the foreign law (and not the lex fori) determines whether a foreign judgment is final and conclusive for the purposes of recognition and enforcement.
Beals v SaldanhaCanadian Supreme CourtYes[2003] 3 SCR 416CanadaMentioned in relation to the 'real and substantial connection' approach, but not applied in the judgment.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007)China
Art 241 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007)China
Art 243 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007)China

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Foreign Judgment
  • International Jurisdiction
  • Voluntary Submission
  • Definite Sum of Money
  • Enforcement
  • Recognition
  • PRC Judgment
  • Breach of Contract
  • Inchoate Submission

15.2 Keywords

  • Foreign Judgment Enforcement
  • International Jurisdiction
  • Breach of Contract
  • Singapore High Court
  • PRC Judgment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments95
Breach of Contract60
Contract Law50
International Commercial Law40
Property Law20

16. Subjects

  • Private International Law
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Contract Law