Sectors
Jurisdictions
- Australia
- Brunei
- Cambodia
- China
- Hong Kong
- India
- Indonesia
- Japan
- Laos
- Macau
- Malaysia
- Mongolia
- Myanmar
- Nepal
- New Zealand
- North Korea
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Singapore
- South Korea
- Sri Lanka
- Taiwan
- Thailand
- Vietnam
- East Timor
- Bangladesh
- Azerbaijan
- Kazakhstan
- Tajikistan
- Egypt
- Cyprus
- Iran
- Israel
- Lebanon
- Kuwait
- Oman
- Jordan
- Bahrain
- Qatar
- Saudi Arabia
- Syria
- UAE
- Turkey
- Pacific Islands
- Russia
- France
- UK
- Canada
- USA
- Latin America
- Africa
Court of Appeal Sets Limits for Foreign Judgments
Issued: May 01 2010The Singapore Court of Appeal has laid down requirements a foreign judgment must meet before the Court will enforce it in Singapore. The Court also clarified the time limits which foreign judgments are subject to.
The Court, in ruling on Poh Soon Kiat v. Desert Palace, established that an enforceable foreign judgment must order the defendant to pay the claimant a definite and ascertained sum of money, write Chandra Mohan Rethnam and Chou Tzu, partners at Rajah & Tann in Singapore. Also, they note, the judgment cannot order the defendant to do anything else, such as specific performance.
“A foreign judgment which satisfies these requirements is enforceable in Singapore unless it is procured by fraud, contrary to public policy or contrary to natural justice,” the lawyers wrote in a Client Update.
Additionally, the Court ruled that an action to enforce a foreign judgment is subject to Section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act, rather than Section 6(3), which was held to apply only to local judgments, and therefore must be brought within six years from the date on which the foreign judgment ought to have been satisfied.
“Parties seeking to enforce foreign judgments in Singapore should ensure that the judgment in question is a money judgment,” the lawyers wrote. “The Courts will look into the nature of the order and refuse to enforce it if it is not a money judgment. Furthermore, parties should always take note of the applicable limitation period. This case clarifies that actions on foreign judgments should be brought within six years, which should alleviate any uncertainty for future litigants on this matter.”
Related Articles
- Powers of Copyright Tribunal Extended
- 2012 Asia IP Award Methodology, Shortlis...
- Iain Sharp Has Joined Bryan Cave As Part...
- Regulatory Guidelines on Importation of ...
- Battle Cry for IP Courts
“New Court or no new court” might be one of the most-frequently asked questions among IP practitioners as they face an increasing amoun...
- The 2014 Asia IP Trademark Survey
A Guide to Asia's Trademark Laws
Law Firms
Most Read Articles
Magazine Issues
Tags
Baker & McKenzie USPTO WIPO DLA Piper Tilleke & Gibbins Anand and Anand TRIPS Delhi High Court Rouse IPOS Remfry & Sagar Hogan Lovells WTO PCT SIPO Spruson & Ferguson KIPO Bird & Bird Lex Orbis EPO Lall Lahiri & Salhotra Krishna & Saurastri Anaqua INTA IPAB JPO Davies Collison Cave patrick mirandah co King & Wood Mallesons AJ Park Kim & Chang Indian Patent Office Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Shearn Delamore & Co Deacons Madrid Protocol Tay & Partners Chang Tsi & Partners Pinsent Masons LLS Lee & Ko Khaitan & Co Blake Dawson USTR K&L Gates Drew & Napier TIPO Allen & Gledhill Griffith Hack Lee and Li