Sang Cheol Woo v Charles Choi Spackman: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Conspiracy Claims

In Sang Cheol Woo v Charles Choi Spackman, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed the plaintiff Sang Cheol Woo's claims against the first defendant, Charles Choi Spackman, to enforce three foreign judgments: the Seoul High Court Judgment (SHCJ), the Korean Supreme Court Judgment (KSCJ), and the New York Judgment (NYJ). Woo also brought conspiracy claims against all the defendants. The court, presided over by Kwek Mean Luck J, ruled on 30 November 2022, that the SHCJ was enforceable against Spackman, but the KSCJ and NYJ were not. The conspiracy claims were bifurcated for a later trial.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff; Seoul High Court Judgment enforceable against the first defendant, Charles Choi Spackman. Korean Supreme Court Judgment and New York Judgment not enforceable.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court enforces Seoul High Court Judgment against Spackman, addressing time-bar, jurisdiction, natural justice, and public policy concerns. Claims of conspiracy were bifurcated.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Sang Cheol WooPlaintiffIndividualSeoul High Court Judgment enforceablePartial
Charles Choi SpackmanDefendantIndividualSeoul High Court Judgment enforceableLost
Kim Jae SeungDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
Kim So HeeDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
Richard LeeDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
Funvest Global Pte LtdDefendantCorporationNeutralNeutral
Spackman Media Group LimitedDefendantCorporationNeutralNeutral
Plutoray Pte LtdDefendantCorporationNeutralNeutral
Vaara Pte LtdDefendantCorporationNeutralNeutral
Starlight Corp Pte LtdDefendantCorporationNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kwek Mean LuckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lin Weiqi WendyWongPartnership LLP
Leow JiaminWongPartnership LLP
Pranay Arvind SuryavanshiWongPartnership LLP
Hong Jia YuWongPartnership LLP
Ong Boon Hwee WilliamAllen & Gledhill LLP
Tan XeauweiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Ong Chin KiatAllen & Gledhill LLP
Dion LoyAllen & Gledhill LLP
Sarah ChewShook Lin & Bok LLP

4. Facts

  1. Woo commenced a civil action against Spackman in the Seoul District Court for losses from market manipulations.
  2. Spackman did not appear in the Seoul District Court proceedings, which proceeded against him by way of public notice.
  3. Woo appealed the Seoul District Court's dismissal of his claims to the Seoul High Court.
  4. Spackman was personally served with documents from the Seoul High Court proceedings but chose not to appear.
  5. The Seoul High Court found Spackman liable based on the Deemed Confession Rule.
  6. Spackman appealed to the Korean Supreme Court, which dismissed his appeal.
  7. Spackman filed an application for retrial with the Seoul High Court, which was dismissed.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sang Cheol Woo v Spackman, Charles Choi and others, Suit No 211 of 2019, [2022] SGHC 298

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Woo commenced a civil action in the Seoul District Court against Spackman.
Complaint and other documents were personally served on Spackman.
The Seoul District Court dismissed Woo’s claims and found in favour of Spackman.
Woo appealed against the Seoul District Court Judgment.
Spackman was personally served with documents from the Seoul High Court proceedings.
Claims against Spackman were heard in the Seoul High Court.
Woo obtained the Seoul High Court Judgment against Spackman.
Spackman filed an appeal to the Korean Supreme Court.
The Korean Supreme Court dismissed Spackman's appeal.
Spackman filed an application for retrial with the Seoul High Court.
The Seoul High Court dismissed the Retrial Application.
The Korean Supreme Court dismissed Spackman’s appeal against the SHC’s dismissal of his Retrial Application.
The Supreme Court of the State of New York granted summary judgment in Woo’s favour.
The present suit was commenced.
The Hong Kong Court of First Instance granted judgment in favour of Woo.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforceability of Foreign Judgments
    • Outcome: The court allowed the enforcement of the Seoul High Court Judgment but not the Korean Supreme Court Judgment or the New York Judgment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Time-bar
      • Judgment on the merits
      • International jurisdiction
      • Breach of natural justice
      • Public policy
  2. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found no breach of natural justice that prevented Woo from enforcing the Seoul High Court Judgment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Lack of notice
      • Insufficient opportunity to present case
  3. Limitation Period for Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
    • Outcome: The court found that the limitation period began to run from the date of the Korean Supreme Court Judgment, not the Seoul High Court Judgment.
    • Category: Procedural
  4. International Jurisdiction of Foreign Courts
    • Outcome: The court found that Spackman had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Korean courts by filing and participating in appeals and applications without raising jurisdictional issues.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Voluntary submission to jurisdiction
  5. Public Policy Considerations in Enforcing Foreign Judgments
    • Outcome: The court found that the enforcement of the Seoul High Court Judgment would not be contrary to the public policy of Singapore.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Punitive interest rates

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Enforcement of Seoul High Court Judgment
  2. Enforcement of Korean Supreme Court Judgment
  3. Enforcement of New York Judgment
  4. Damages for conspiracy

9. Cause of Actions

  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Conspiracy (lawful and unlawful means)

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)Court of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 1129SingaporeCited as authority on the enforceability of foreign judgments in Singapore, setting out the requirements for enforcement.
Bellezza Club Japan Co Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko and othersHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 342SingaporeCited for the test of finality of a foreign judgment, requiring consideration of foreign law in assessing finality.
Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 1322SingaporeCited for the tests for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, emphasizing the need to assess finality from the perspective of the foreign court.
The “Bunga Melati 5”Court of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 546SingaporeCited for the definition of a final and conclusive judgment, and for the principle that the court must be extra-sensitive to the intention of the foreign judge.
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2)House of LordsYes[1967] 1 AC 853EnglandCited for the principle that it would be absurd to regard a foreign judgment as conclusive if the foreign courts themselves would not regard it as such.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (formerly known as Merck & Co, Inc) v Merck KGaA (formerly known as E Merck)Court of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 1102SingaporeCited for the principle that the decision on the specific issue that is said to be the subject matter of the estoppel must be final and conclusive under the law of the foreign judgment’s originating jurisdiction.
Gustave Nouvion v FreemanHouse of LordsYes(1889) 15 App Cas 1EnglandCited for the principle that a foreign decree need not be final in the sense that it cannot be appealed, but it must be final and unalterable in the court which pronounced it.
Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 545SingaporeCited for the proposition that foreign law determines whether a foreign judgment is final and conclusive for the purposes of recognition and enforcement.
Eleven Gesellschaft Zur Entwicklung Und Vermarktung Von Netzwerktechonologien MBH v Boxsentry Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 210SingaporeCited for the principle that the finality of a default judgment is tested by its effect under the law of the originating jurisdiction.
Nouvion v FreemanN/AYesLR 15 AC 1N/ACited for the principle that it would be a very startling result if in this country we should hold the remate judgment to be final and conclusive, while in the municipal institutions of the country which has sent out this judgment, it would not even be regarded as res judicata.
Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier IncHigh CourtYes[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.
Manharlal Trikamdas Mody and another v Sumikin Bussan International (HK) LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 1161SingaporeCited for the principle that in relation to whether a judgment is final and conclusive on the merits, the “real question is whether the decision is final for the purposes of res judicata”.
D S V Silo-Und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Owners of The SennarN/AYes[1985] 1WLR 490N/ACited for the principle that a judgment is final and conclusive on the merits if it establishes certain facts as proved or not in dispute; states what are the relevant principles of law applicable to such facts; and expresses a conclusion with regard to the effect of applying those principles to the factual situation concerned.
Seagate Technology International v Vikas GoelHigh CourtNo[2016] SGHC 12SingaporeCited to contrast the approach taken by the Singapore courts when the defendant does not enter an appearance.
Indian Overseas Bank v Svil Agro Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtNo[2014] 3 SLR 892SingaporeCited to contrast the approach taken by the Singapore courts when the defendant does not enter an appearance.
SA Consortium General Textiles v Sun and Sand AgenciesEnglish Court of AppealYes[1978] QB 279EnglandCited for the principle that by inviting the Appeal Court to decide in its favour on the merits, it must be taken to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the original court.
Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 1061SingaporeCited for the core principles of natural justice, which are notice and the opportunity to be heard.
Adams and others v Cape Industries Plc and anotherEnglish Court of AppealNo[1990] Ch 433EnglandCited for the principle that the point was not concluded against the defendants merely because they had been given proper notice of the application for default judgment and would, if they had attended, have been allowed full opportunity to put their case.
Hong Leong Finance Ltd v Tan Gin Huay and anotherN/ANo[1999] 1 SLR(R) 755N/ACited for the principle that a default interest of 18% per annum was “manifestly excessive” and was therefore an unenforceable penalty.
Lewis v Eliades and othersN/ANo[2004] 1 WLR 692N/ACited for the common law principle that a court will not enforce a foreign judgment for a penalty.
Alberto Justo Rodriguez Licea and others v Curacao Drydock Co, IncHigh CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 172SingaporeCited for the principle that the punitive part of the foreign judgment can be severed, so that only the compensatory parts were enforceable.
Morgan Stanley & Co International Ltd v Pilot Lead Investments LtdN/ANo[2006] 4 HKC 93Hong KongCited for the principle that a foreign judgment on the enforcement of another foreign judgment can be enforced in Singapore.
Motorola Solutions Credit Company LLC (fka Motorola Credit Corporation) v Kemal Uzan & OrsN/ANo[2014] HKCU 975Hong KongCited as a criticism of the Morgan Stanley case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 38 Rule 2(1) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation Act 1959Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959Singapore
Korean Civil Procedure ActKorea

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Foreign Judgment Enforcement
  • Deemed Confession Rule
  • International Jurisdiction
  • Natural Justice
  • Public Policy
  • Res Judicata
  • Limitation Period
  • Seoul High Court Judgment
  • Korean Supreme Court Judgment
  • New York Judgment

15.2 Keywords

  • foreign judgments
  • enforcement
  • conflict of laws
  • Singapore
  • Korea
  • jurisdiction
  • natural justice
  • public policy
  • conspiracy

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments95
Conflict of Laws85
Jurisdiction70
Civil Procedure40
Appeal30
Evidence Law25
Estoppel20
Constitutional Law15
Arbitration10

16. Subjects

  • Conflict of Laws
  • Civil Procedure
  • Enforcement of Judgments