Answer ... Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act: Under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment may be challenged by the party against which the foreign judgment is made on the following grounds:

• The judgment is not a judgment to which the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act applies;
• The foreign court had no jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case;
• The judgment debtor, being a defendant in the original proceedings in the foreign court, did not receive notice of the original proceedings in sufficient time to enable it to defend the proceedings and did not appear;
• The judgment was obtained by fraud;
• Enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to public policy in Singapore; or
• The rights under the judgment are not vested in the person by which the application for registration was made.

The Singapore courts will set aside the registration of the judgment if they are satisfied in relation to any of the above.

Additionally, the Singapore courts may set aside registration of the judgment if they are satisfied that:

• the matter in dispute in the original proceedings in the foreign court was, before the date of the judgment in the foreign court, the subject of a final and conclusive judgment by a court with jurisdiction in the matter; or
• the notice of registration was not served on the judgment debtor or was defective.

Choice of Court Agreements Act: Under the Choice of Court Agreements Act, the Singapore courts will refuse to enforce or recognise the foreign judgment, or will set aside an order that recognises or enforces a foreign judgment, in the following circumstances:

• The defendant in the proceedings in which the foreign judgment was obtained was not notified of the document by which the proceedings were instituted, including the essential elements of the claim, in sufficient time to enable it to defend the proceedings, unless the law of the foreign country allows the notification to be challenged and the defendant had entered an appearance and presented the defendant’s case without challenging the notification in the foreign court;
• The foreign judgment was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter of procedure; or
• Recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of Singapore, including circumstances where specific proceedings leading to the judgment would be incompatible with the fundamental principles of procedural fairness in Singapore.

Additionally, although not mandated, the Singapore courts may refuse to enforce or recognise a foreign judgment, or may set aside an order that recognises or enforces a foreign judgment, in the following circumstances:

• The exclusive choice of court agreement is null and void under the law of the state of the chosen court, unless the chosen court has determined that the agreement is valid;
• A party to the exclusive choice of court agreement lacked the capacity to enter into or conclude that agreement under Singapore law;
• The defendant in the proceedings in which the foreign judgment was obtained was notified of the document by which proceedings were instituted, including the essential elements of the claim, in a manner that is incompatible with the fundamental principles in Singapore concerning the service of documents;
• The foreign judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given by a Singapore court in a dispute between the same parties;
• The foreign judgment is inconsistent with an earlier judgment:
• • given in another country between the same parties on the same cause of action; and
  • that satisfies the conditions necessary for recognition in Singapore under Singapore law;
• The foreign judgment is being reviewed or appealed against in the foreign country; or
• The time for applying for a review or appeal in the state of origin has not expired.

Common law: The defendant in an enforcement action in Singapore may challenge enforcement of the foreign judgment on the following grounds:

• The foreign judgment was obtained in breach of natural justice;
• The foreign judgment was procured through fraud;
• Enforcement of the foreign judgment would be against Singapore’s public policy; or
• Enforcement of the foreign judgment would be equivalent to the direct or indirect enforcement of foreign penal, revenue or other public laws.

Answer ... Under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, an application to have the registration of a foreign judgment set aside may be made at any time during:

• the period specified in the order for registration as the period within which an application may be made to set aside the registration; or
• such period as the court may have so extended it to.

Under the Choice of Court Agreements Act, an application to set aside a court order relating to the foreign judgment must be filed within:

• 28 days of the date on which the court order and the copy of the foreign judgment were served on the judgment debtor; or
• such period which the Singapore courts may allow.

Answer ... An application for an injunction will generally constitute a separate application.

In any event, in relation to a court order obtained under the Choice of Court Agreements Act, the court order will not take effect while an application to set aside the court order is pending. Similarly, under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, an enforcement order to enforce the foreign judgment must not be issued where an application to set aside the registration of the foreign judgment has been made, until after such an application is finally determined.