ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT
In Powercom Co, Ltd v Sunpower Semiconductor Ltd [2024] SGHC 89, the plaintiff sought to enforce in Singapore a judgment obtained in the Taiwan Taipei District Court.
Facts. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant on 7 June 2013 in the Taiwan Taipei District Court (“DC Judgment”) (at [1]).
The defendant’s appeals to the Taiwan High Court and subsequently to the Taiwan Supreme Court were dismissed via the HC Judgment on or about 23 September 2014 (“HC Judgment”) and on or about 18 May 2016 respectively (at [1]).
The plaintiff filed the present suit on 11 July 2019 to enforce the DC Judgment as a foreign judgment in Singapore (at [2]).
To enforce a foreign judgment. To enforce a foreign judgment in Singapore, the judgment must be final and conclusive as between the parties (at [2]), having regard to the foreign law (at [5]).
The issue was therefore when the DC Judgment was considered final and conclusive, in the sense that “it must be regarded as res judicata, or a final determination of the rights of the parties.” (at [5])
This is because the defendant’s counsel argued that the action was time-barred by s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1959 (2020 Rev Ed), having accrued from 7 June 2013 ([3]).
The issue. The experts for both parties were largely in agreement on the Taiwan law (at [6] – [7]).
However, the parties were divided on the point in time at which the DC Judgment ought to be deemed final and conclusive under Singapore law (at [8] – [9]).
As set out above, the defendant argued that the DC Judgment ought to be deemed final and conclusive on 7 June 2013 (at [8]).
The plaintiff argued that the DC Judgment ought to be deemed final and conclusive after 18 May 2016, given that res judicata, under Taiwan law, only applies to the DC Judgment after the Taiwan Supreme Court rendered judgment (at [9]).
Choo J agreed with the plaintiff’s submission, taking the view that “final and conclusive” in the present case “must mean res judicata after the appeals have been determined, and not res judicata at the court of first instance” (at [9]).
Equities of the case? What is interesting is that Choo J considered the “equities of the case” and appeared to have taken into consideration that the defendant had “appealed, unsuccessfully, twice”.
See [10] – [11] below:
“10 It is a fundamental principle of law and justice that a successful claimant must be allowed to enforce a judgment obtained in his favour. All the more so where, as in this case, the claimant had succeeded not once or twice, but thrice. The defendant here appealed, unsuccessfully, twice. It now lies ill in the defendant’s mouth to claim that the plaintiff is time-barred from enforcing the judgment, because the defendant itself prolonged the day of reckoning of its own volition.
11 … A judgment is final and conclusive on the merits if it is one which cannot be varied, re-opened or set aside by the court that delivered it (The Bunga Melati 5 [2012] 4 SLR 546 at [81]). At first blush, this principle applies in favour of the defendant. However, it is equally clear that the equities of the case weigh against the defendant.”
Given the importance of allowing a winning party to enjoy the fruits of litigation, Choo J said that “it is sensible to deem the foreign judgment as final and conclusive, even if it is subject to appeal, to allow the prevailing party to commence its enforcement applications” (at [12]).
However, Choo J found that it was inappropriate to so deem in the present case due to the defendant’s conduct (at [13] – [14]):
“13 However, in the present case where the losing party had, in fact, exercised its right to appeal, at multiple instances, it is inappropriate to hold that “final and conclusive” refers to res judicata before the appeals were determined. It is cynical for the defendant to claim that the DC judgment is final and conclusive while treating it as plainly the opposite, by appealing against the same. Where appeals are pending determination, the matter has not been put to rest until the outcomes of the appeals have been determined. Therefore, in these situations, the judgment would be final and conclusive only after the appeals had been determined. It would be absurd to allow the losing party to appeal against the first instance judgment, and also argue in the same breath that the first instance judgment is deemed final and conclusive such that the cause of action to enforce that judgment has accrued. To hold thus is an open invitation to a defaulting party to mount appeal after appeal merely to let the time limitation run its course. Indeed, in all these instances it is the duty of the court to prevent abuse of process.
14 In the same vein, where the party who had lost, files appeals, unsuccessfully, against the judgment, the prevailing party must be entitled to enforce the judgment. Where enforcement proceedings have commenced and an appeal against the foreign judgment is pending determination, the court is also entitled to stay the enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal, ensuring that neither party is prejudiced. This latter form is more appropriate where the enforcement is sought within the jurisdiction in which the judgment was obtained. In the present case, the foreign law and procedure does not allow the judgment that the plaintiff had obtained, to be binding until the end of the appeal process.”
Therefore, Choo J found that the DC Judgment was only final and conclusive after 18 May 2016 (at [15]).
Conclusion. While the judgment raises the interesting question of whether the strict rules of limitation and res judicata may be subject to changes based on the “equities of the case”, we note that this argument may have been avoided had the plaintiff taken up the present application earlier. In particular, given that the appeal to the Taiwan Supreme Court was dismissed on or about 18 May 2016, had the plaintiff sought to enforce the DC Judgment shortly after the dismissal of the appeal, the present situation may not have arisen at all.
Hence, for successful judgment creditors, it is important to take steps to enforce your judgment in a timely manner. Failure to do so may attract issues of time bar, and you may run the risk of the judgment debtor becoming insolvent / bankrupt in the interim. Regard to the foreign law is also important when seeking to enforce a foreign judgment in Singapore.
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice; it is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking, actions based on this publication. Chancery Law Corporation is not responsible for, and does not accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance based on this publication.