On 11 October 2021, the Singapore High Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff in HC/S 316/2021 (unreported) ("Suit 316"), on the plaintiff's claim for the recognition and enforcement of a money judgment issued by the People's Court of Qingpu District, Shanghai City, People's Republic of China ("Shanghai Qingpu Court") dated 27 January 2021 ("Shanghai Judgment"). This is possibly the first time that the Singapore High Court has enforced a money judgment of the courts of the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), following the signing of the Memorandum of Guidance ("MOG") between the Supreme People's Court of the PRC and the Supreme Court of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments in Commercial Cases on 31 August 2018.
Facts
The plaintiff's claim against the defendant in the proceedings giving rise to the Shanghai Judgment (the "Shanghai Proceedings") arose from a guarantee whereby the defendant had agreed to personally guarantee a loan of RMB 2,000,000 from the plaintiff to a third-party company. Following the company's failure to repay the loan to the plaintiff, the plaintiff commenced the Shanghai Proceedings against, inter alia, the company and the defendant. The defendant failed to appear in the Shanghai Proceedings, and judgment was entered against the defendant in default of the defendant's appearance.
The defendant is a Singapore citizen. The plaintiff therefore commenced the action in Suit 316 for the recognition and enforcement of the Shanghai Judgment in Singapore. In Singapore, the defendant resisted the proceedings in Suit 316, claiming inter alia that the Shanghai Judgment had been obtained in breach of natural justice in that she did not have reasonable notice of the Shanghai Proceedings. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment against the defendant.
Decision
In deciding to grant summary judgment against the defendant in Suit 316, the Singapore High Court noted that further to the issue of the Shanghai Judgment, the Shanghai Qingpu Court had issued a Certificate of Entry into Force of the Shanghai Judgment on 30 April 2021 ("Certificate") and that the Defendant did not raise any issue regarding the issuance of the Shanghai Judgment and the Certificate. The High Court further noted that the defendant did not dispute her liability under the guarantee on which the Shanghai Judgment was based on, and had accepted in her affidavit that she had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Shanghai Qingpu Court. The High Court was therefore satisfied that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case against the defendant for the recognition and enforcement of the Shanghai Judgment.
As for the defendant's defence that she had not been given sufficient notice of the Shanghai Proceedings, the Singapore High Court found that this defence was not borne out by the defendant's own affidavit. Rather, the High Court was satisfied that the defendant had in fact been aware of the Shanghai Proceedings and had received a copy of the papers in the Shanghai Proceedings before the Shanghai Judgment was made. Further, the Singapore High Court noted that the Shanghai Qingpu Court had been alive to the issue of the defendant having been given notice of the Shanghai Proceedings, as the Shanghai Qingpu Court had made the express finding that the defendant had failed to appear to defend the action without justified reason despite having been legally summoned to court. The High Court decided that there was no basis to question the Shanghai Qingpu Court's findings and decision in this regard. In the circumstances, the defendant was found to be unable to sustain her defence that she had not been given adequate notice of the Shanghai Proceedings. The Singapore High Court therefore granted summary judgment against the defendant.
Comments
The decision in Suit 316 is a good example of how litigants may be guided by the MOG in future applications for the recognition and enforcement of money judgments granted by the courts of the PRC.
The MOG does not change the substantive legal approach in Singapore towards the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (i.e. that the foreign judgment must be (a) final and conclusive, (b) in accordance with the private international law of Singapore, the foreign court had jurisdiction to grant the judgment, and (c) there is no defence to its recognition – see Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte Ltd [2014] 2 SLR 545). Rather, the MOG provides a useful guide for litigants to show how these elements may be satisfied:
- To show that the judgment is final and conclusive, Article 19 of the MOG states that the court of the PRC which rendered the judgment may issue a certification to certify that the judgment has come into force, and such certification shall be regarded as conclusive evidence on the finality and conclusiveness of the judgment. The Singapore High Court in Suit 316 accepted the Certificate to be satisfactory evidence of the finality and conclusiveness of the Shanghai Judgment.
- To show that the foreign court had jurisdiction, Article 21 of the MOG provides general guidance on the scenarios where the Singapore Court would consider that the court of the PRC had the required jurisdiction to grant the judgment. In Suit 316, it was sufficient that the defendant had agreed by way of the guarantee contract to submit to the jurisdiction of the Shanghai Qingpu Court.
- Article 22 of the MOG sets out a non-exclusive list of the limited grounds on which the defendant may raise a defence to the enforcement of a judgement issued by the courts of the PRC. In Suit 316, the defendant sought to rely on the ground set out at Article 22(c)(i) of the MOG – that the defendant had not been given notice of the judicial proceedings. This defence was not borne out by the defendant's own affidavit, however, and was rejected by the Singapore High Court in Suit 316.
Shook Lin & Bok LLP represented the plaintiff in his successful application in Suit 316.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.