乐鱼体育官网

30 June 2025

Download PDF

The High Court in Stronghold Global Holdings Ltd (In Liquidation) v Lim Chang Huat [2025] MLJU 525 has, for the first time, registered a judgment from the?Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”), a specialist division of the Singapore High Court that handles complex international commercial disputes. This case provides important clarity on the scope of the?Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ?(“REJA 1958”), the recognition of specialist foreign courts, and the limited public policy grounds for resisting enforcement.

This article provides an overview of the court’s decision.

Snapshot

The judgment creditor, Stronghold Global Holdings Ltd ?(“JC”) and the judgment debtor, Lim Chang Huat (“JD”), had entered into a share purchase agreement (“SPA”) for the sale of the JD’s shares in NEP Holdings (乐鱼体育官网) Berhad to the JC. The JD breached the terms of the SPA resulting in its termination by the JC.

The SPA provides that 乐鱼体育官网n law is the governing law of the contract, and that disputes are to be adjudicated by the Singapore courts. The JC filed an action at the SICC claiming for, among other things, the deposit and purchase consideration paid to the JD under the SPA. The SICC entered judgment in favour of the JC and ordered the JD to pay the monies owed plus costs (“SICC Judgment”). The JD appealed to the Singapore Court of Appeal but was unsuccessful.

The JC subsequently applied to the?High Court of Malaya?to register the SICC Judgment under REJA 1958, which permits the registration and recognition of judgments from superior courts of reciprocating countries listed in its First Schedule. ?

Satisfied that the SICC Judgment was a foreign judgment which could be registered under REJA, the High Court granted the application and ordered the SICC Judgment be registered as a judgment of the High Court of Malaya pursuant to section 4 of REJA 1958 (“Order”). The JD filed an application to set aside the Order.

Judgment

There are limited grounds in section 5 of REJA 195 under which the registration of a foreign judgment may be set aside. These grounds include lack of jurisdiction of the originating court and breach of public policy.

In its application to set aside the Order, the JD raised the following grounds:

• SICC had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the parties under the SPA;
• The non-application of 乐鱼体育官网n law during the SICC proceedings rendered the SICC Judgment contrary to public policy; and
• The JD was not represented by his 乐鱼体育官网n counsel before the SICC, constituting a breach of natural justice, which contrary to public policy.

The High Court ruled in favour of the JC on all issues and dismissed the JD’s application to set aside the Order.

The High Court found that the SICC had the jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the parties on two grounds. First, the JD had participated in the proceedings before the SICC and had submitted to its jurisdiction. Second, the JD was bound by the agreement in the SPA to submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. The High Court also accepted and relied on the unrebutted expert evidence of Singaporean law adduced by the JC to confirm that the SICC had jurisdiction over the dispute.

On the issue of non-application of 乐鱼体育官网n law, the High Court found that the SICC Judgement was not in breach of public policy, noting that the JD’s own Singapore solicitors had expressly confirmed that they would not be adducing evidence on 乐鱼体育官网n law and were content for 乐鱼体育官网n law to be treated the same as Singapore law in the SICC proceedings.

The High Court also reaffirmed the principle that a mere difference between two legal systems - here, 乐鱼体育官网 and Singapore - did not by itself make the enforcement of a foreign judgment contrary to public policy. A party must demonstrate that the legal differences would compromise the integrity of the court’s process or result in an abuse of power to succeed on such a ground.

The JD also alleged that he was denied fair representation as he was not represented by 乐鱼体育官网n lawyers in the SICC proceedings. The High Court noted that a party seeking to be represented by foreign lawyers at the SICC must make an application to the SICC and that such application may only be filed in respect of an offshore case under Order 110 rule 34 of the Singapore Rules of Court 2021. Having failed to seek permission for foreign counsel in accordance with Singapore law, the JD cannot then contend that he was denied the right to be represented by 乐鱼体育官网n lawyers in the proceedings before the SICC.

Further, there was no denial of access to justice as the JD was at all times represented by his Singapore counsel in the proceedings before the SICC and the Singapore Court of Appeal.

Comment

The High Court’s decision establishes that judgments issued by the SICC are capable of recognition and enforcement under the REJA 1958 regime. Although the SICC is a specialist division of the Singapore High Court, its status as part of a superior court in a reciprocating country under the First Schedule of REJA 1958 qualifies its judgments for registration in 乐鱼体育官网. The High Court’s finding that the JD had submitted to the jurisdiction of the SICC by virtue of, among other things, the jurisdictional agreement in the SPA affirms judicial support for party autonomy in international dispute resolution.

The High Court stated that a “higher standard of public policy” should apply given that the general rule of the court is to allow for the enforcement of foreign judgments. This part of the judgment underscores that public policy must involve fundamental injustice or an affront to the 乐鱼体育官网n legal system. It cannot be used as a catch-all objection to enforcement.

This decision reflects the 乐鱼体育官网n court’s readiness to uphold the principle of international comity and reciprocity in recognition of a foreign judgment from reciprocal jurisdictions under REJA 1958.

Our Partner Kwong Chiew Ee and Associate Ong Eng Hong represented the JC in the High Court.

Further information

This article was prepared with the assistance of Associate Ong Eng Hong.