Enforcement of Foreign Judgments & Arbitration Awards in Singapore: What to Know

Whether your business is headquartered in Singapore, Southeast Asia, or the wider Asia-Pacific, it’s essential that you understand how to properly deal with cross-border and international commercial disputes.

Successfully navigating such disputes often culminates in obtaining a judgment from a foreign court or an award from an international arbitration tribunal. However, what makes a judgment or award valuable is its enforceability—which may vary depending on the jurisdiction.

This blog will examine the enforcement of foreign judgments or the recognition and execution of international arbitration awards within Singapore’s jurisdiction. While seemingly straightforward, this process does involve distinct legal frameworks and potential complexities that entrepreneurs and founders should be aware of when entering dispute resolution.

Enforcing Foreign Judgments in Singapore

When seeking to enforce a foreign judgment in Singapore, two primary avenues exist: statutory reciprocal enforcement and enforcement under common law principles.

Reciprocal Enforcement Agreements

Singapore has entered into various reciprocal enforcement agreements through key legislation such as the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (REFJA).

These are statutory frameworks that provide a relatively straightforward mechanism for a judgment obtained in a designated foreign country to be registered and then enforced in Singapore as if it were a judgment of a Singaporean court.

These agreements streamline the process for enforcement of foreign judgments originating from those specific jurisdictions, avoiding the need for a fresh lawsuit on the merits of the case. Instead, a judgment creditor may apply to the High Court of Singapore to register the foreign judgment within six years of its date of judgment. Once registered, the judgment holds the same force and effect as a local judgment, allowing for local enforcement measures to be taken.

Countries including the United Kingdom, Australia, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, and Hong Kong SAR have reciprocal arrangements with Singapore under REFJA. However, it’s important to note that the scope of judgments covered can vary by country, extending beyond just money judgments to include non-money judgments and even interlocutory orders from recognised courts.

Common Law Principles

Where no reciprocal enforcement agreement exists between Singapore and the foreign country where the judgment was obtained, the recognition of foreign judgments and their subsequent enforcement typically proceeds under common law principles. This requires commencing a fresh action in Singapore based on the foreign judgment, treating the foreign judgment as a debt owed by the judgment debtor.

Several requirements must be met for the judgment to be recognised and enforced under common law:

• Finality and conclusiveness: The judgment must be final and conclusive on its merits under the law of the foreign country. It must not be merely interlocutory (interim measures) or subject to further appeal on its merits in the original court.
• Jurisdiction: The foreign court that issued the judgment must have had proper “international jurisdiction” over the defendant according to Singapore’s conflict of laws rules. This generally means the defendant was present in the foreign country, submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction, or expressly agreed to submit.
• Natural justice and due process: The foreign proceedings must have been conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice. This implies that the defendant was properly notified of the proceedings and had a fair opportunity to present their case.
• Absence of fraud or other defenses: The foreign judgment must not have been obtained by fraud. Other defenses, such as the judgment being contrary to Singaporean public policy, may also prevent enforcement.

Grounds for Refusal

Creditors should also keep in mind that even if a foreign judgment falls under a reciprocal enforcement regime or satisfies common law principles, Singapore courts may still refuse its enforcement on specific grounds for refusal, such as:

• Lack of jurisdiction of the foreign court: If the Singapore court determines that the foreign court did not have the appropriate jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter.
• Breach of natural justice: If the defendant was not given proper notice of the proceedings or was not afforded a fair opportunity to present their case in the foreign court.
• Public policy considerations: If it would be contrary to Singapore’s fundamental public policy or moral standards. This is a narrow ground, applied only in exceptional circumstances.
• Fraud or collusion: If the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud or collusion between the parties.

Enforcing Foreign Arbitration Awards in Singapore

Singapore is a leading hub for international arbitration, such as through the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). Singapore’s legal framework strongly supports the enforcement of arbitral awards along with other advantages like pro-arbitration judiciary and a strategic geographical location in the heart of Asia-Pacific.

The New York Convention

Singapore is a Contracting State to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention. This global treaty significantly facilitates the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards across signatory states.

Singapore’s adherence to this Convention means that foreign arbitral awards obtained in other contracting states are generally enforceable in Singapore. Moreover, Singaporean courts typically adopt a strong pro-enforcement stance towards foreign arbitral awards, demonstrating minimal curial intervention. This means they are highly unlikely to review the merits of the arbitral award itself, focusing instead on procedural and limited substantive issues.

This pro-enforcement stance has cemented Singapore’s reputation as a favourable jurisdiction for international arbitration.

Grounds for Refusing Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

While Singapore is pro-enforcement, the New York Convention does provide limited grounds for refusal to enforce an arbitral award. These are generally procedural in nature and the burden of proving these grounds lies with the party resisting enforcement, such as:

• Incapacity of a party: If a party to the arbitration agreement was under some legal incapacity.
• Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: If the arbitration agreement itself was not valid under the applicable law.
• Lack of due process: If the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present their case.
• Excess of jurisdiction: If the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration.
• Procedural irregularities: If the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or the law of the country where the arbitration took place.
• Award not yet binding or set aside: If the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority in the country where it was made.
• Public policy concerns: If the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of Singapore. This is a very narrow ground, typically reserved for cases where enforcement would violate Singapore’s most fundamental notions of morality and justice.
• Subject matter not arbitrable: If the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Singapore law.

Practical Considerations for Enforcement

Successfully navigating the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in Singapore requires a clear understanding of the relevant legal frameworks and strategic planning. There are also specific time limits for enforcement to be aware of and potentially complex legal paperwork to complete and file with the High Court, supported by affidavits and necessary documentation. Learn more about the difference between litigation VS arbitration for dispute resolution.

Understanding these complexities is vital for anyone seeking to recover assets or enforce rights across borders. That’s why engaging an international arbitration lawyer early in the process can significantly simplify and streamline complicated enforcement efforts.

Farallon Law possesses extensive experience in cross-border dispute resolution and enforcement. Our law firm can assess the enforceability of your judgment or award, identify potential challenges, and advise you on the most effective enforcement strategy moving forward be it garnishee orders, writs of seizure and sale, or charging orders.

Our experienced team is well-equipped to assist you in navigating the intricacies of enforcement of foreign judgments and international arbitration in Singapore. Contact Farallon Law today for expert assistance with your cross-border dispute resolution and enforcement needs.