Ha Chi Kut v Chen Aun-Li Andrew: Enforcement of Foreign Judgment under REFJA

In Ha Chi Kut v Chen Aun-Li Andrew, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the registration of a foreign judgment from Hong Kong. Ha Chi Kut, as the executrix of Khoo Ee Liam's estate, sought to register a costs order against Chen Aun-Li Andrew under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (REFJA). The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application for registration was made within the statutory time limit, as the six-year period commenced from the date the costs were quantified.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the 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

Singapore court case regarding the enforcement of a Hong Kong costs order. The key issue was whether the registration was filed within the statutory time limit.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chen Aun-Li AndrewDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Ha Chi KutPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Pang Khang ChauJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Soo Ziyang DanielSelvam LLC
Luis Inaki Duhart GonzalesSelvam LLC
Mak Sushan MelissaAllen & Gledhill LLP
Tan Kai LiangAllen & Gledhill LLP
Lim Min Li AmandaAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. Mdm Ha applied to register a Hong Kong court order for costs against Mr Chen.
  2. The Hong Kong court order was issued on 30 April 2013, with costs to be taxed.
  3. The taxing master's costs certificate was issued on 13 May 2020, quantifying the costs.
  4. Mdm Ha applied for registration in Singapore on 21 June 2021.
  5. Mr Chen argued the application was time-barred as it was more than six years from the 2013 order.
  6. The court considered whether the six-year period commenced from the 2013 order or the 2020 certificate.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ha Chi Kut (suing as the sole executrix of the estate of Khoo Ee Liam, deceased)vChen Aun-Li Andrew, Originating Summons No 618 of 2021 (Registrar’s Appeal No 337 of 2021), [2022] SGHC 149

6. Timeline

DateEvent
ACL commenced Action No 4353 in Hong Kong against Mr Khoo
HKCFI dismissed ACL’s claim and allowed Mr Khoo’s counterclaim
Mr Khoo applied for Mr Chen to be made jointly and severally liable with ACL for the said costs
HKCFI issued an order that the costs of the main action and the counterclaim be paid by Chen Aun-Li Andrew
Taxation proceedings were commenced by Mr Khoo
Mr Khoo passed away
Adjournment of taxation proceedings granted
Mdm Ha obtained probate of Mr Khoo’s estate
Mdm Ha joined herself as a party to Action 4353
Taxation proceedings were then restored by Mdm Ha filing a notice of intention to proceed
Service of the notice by post at Mr Chen’s Hong Kong address was returned undelivered
Mdm Ha applied for leave to effect substituted service by pre-paid airmail to Mr Chen’s Singapore address
Leave was granted
Substituted service was effected
Mr Khoo’s bill of costs was taxed by Master Hui of the HKCFI
Taxing master’s costs certificate was issued
Mdm Ha applied vide OS 618 for the sealed Order of Court dated 30 April 2013 and Allocatur (Bill No. 3) dated 13 May 2020 to be registered
Order in terms was granted ex parte
The Registration Order was served on Mr Chen on or around 7 October 2021
Mr Chen applied to set aside the Registration Order
The learned AR rejected Mr Chen’s submissions on both grounds and dismissed the setting aside application
The 2020 Revised Edition of Acts came into force
Mr Chen’s appeal against the AR’s decision was heard before me on 24 January 2022
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
    • Outcome: The court held that the six-year period for registration commenced from the date the costs were quantified.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Time limit for registration of foreign judgment
      • Calculation of six-year period under REFJA
  2. Statutory Interpretation
    • Outcome: The court adopted a purposive interpretation of the REFJA to align with common law principles.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Purposive approach to statutory interpretation
      • Interpretation of 'date of the judgment' in REFJA

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Registration of Foreign Judgment
  2. Monetary Payment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgment

10. Practice Areas

  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier IncCourt of AppealYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 515SingaporeCited for the principle that a foreign judgment in personam given by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction may be enforced by an action for the amount due under it so long as the foreign judgment is final and conclusive as between the same parties.
Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)Court of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 1129SingaporeCited to clarify that a foreign judgment may be enforced by an action for the amount due under it only if it is a judgment for a definite sum of money.
Chohan v Times Newspaper LtdHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 WLR 184United KingdomCited for the principle that costs orders only become enforceable after they are quantified and certified, with the six-year limitation period starting to run only from this point.
In re A Debtor (No 20 of 1953), Ex p The Debtor v ScottN/AYes[1954] WLR 1190N/ACited in support of the reasoning that a foreign judgment relating to money cannot be enforceable in this jurisdiction until it is reduced to an actual money judgment, that is until the amount is finally quantified.
Berliner Industriebank Aktiengesellschaft v JostN/AYes[1971] 1 QB 278N/ACited in support of the reasoning that a foreign judgment relating to money cannot be enforceable in this jurisdiction until it is reduced to an actual money judgment, that is until the amount is finally quantified.
Nouvion v FreemanN/AYes(1889) LR 15 AC 1N/ACited for the principle that a foreign judgment will not be regarded as final and conclusive for the purpose of enforcement in this jurisdiction if it is not considered final and conclusive under the laws of the country in which the foreign judgment was given.
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2)N/AYes[1967] 1 AC 853N/ACited for the principle that a foreign judgment will not be regarded as final and conclusive for the purpose of enforcement in this jurisdiction if it is not considered final and conclusive under the laws of the country in which the foreign judgment was given.
Berliner Industriebank Aktiengesellschaft v JostN/AYes[1970] 3 WLR 743N/ACited for the principle that a foreign judgment will not be regarded as final and conclusive for the purpose of enforcement in this jurisdiction if it is not considered final and conclusive under the laws of the country in which the foreign judgment was given.
Yong Kheng Leong and another v Panweld Trading Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 173SingaporeCited for the principle that the Law Revision Commissioners did not have the power to effect any substantive change to this (or, for that matter, any other statute).

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Cap 265, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Act 2019 (Act 25 of 2019)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act
  • REFJA
  • Foreign Judgment
  • Costs Order
  • Taxation Proceedings
  • Taxing Master's Costs Certificate
  • Date of the Judgment
  • Six-Year Period
  • Final and Conclusive
  • Money Judgment

15.2 Keywords

  • Foreign Judgment
  • Enforcement
  • Singapore
  • Hong Kong
  • REFJA
  • Costs Order
  • Limitation Period

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Recognition of Foreign Judgments95
Statutory Interpretation75
Judgments and Orders60
Limitation50

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Enforcement of Judgments