COL 5 - Foreign Judgements PDF

Takeaways Foreign judgments can be important in resolving disputes and bringing proceedings to an end. To be recognized in Singapore, a foreign judgment must meet requirements such as jurisdiction and finality. Defenses against recognition include breaches of natural justice, fraud, and public po...

Takeaways Foreign judgments can be important in resolving disputes and bringing proceedings to an end. To be recognized in Singapore, a foreign judgment must meet requirements such as jurisdiction and finality. Defenses against recognition include breaches of natural justice, fraud, and public policy. Recognized foreign judgments can be enforced if they are money judgments. Foreign judgments can also be used to stop parties from relitigating certain issues in Singapore proceedings. Issue estoppel and Henderson estoppel are doctrines that can be invoked based on recognized foreign judgments. Andrew Yip (00:01.314) Welcome to our fourth and final substantive lecture for the Conflict of Laws module on foreign judgements. Andrew Yip (00:12.44) So this lecture will proceed as follows. First, we\'re going to consider why foreign judgements are important, what we can do with them in Singapore, and why the conflict of laws is bothered by them. Second, we\'re going to go through the requirements that a foreign judgement must meet to be prima facie recognisable in Singapore. Second, we\'re going to go through the defences that the judgement debtor can raise against the recognition of a judgement in Singapore. And finally, we\'re going to talk about the consequences that a foreign judgement which has been recognised in Singapore can have. in Singapore. Andrew Yip (00:48.812) Why are foreign judgements important? We\'ve seen in previous lectures that there is a lot to talk about in the conflict of laws as to whether or not the Singapore courts should exercise jurisdiction over parties or in the dispute, and whether or not if they do, they should apply Singapore law or foreign law. Regardless of all of this, however, a foreign judgment obtained by a foreign court, which is sought to be enforced in Singapore, before the conclusion of Singaporean proceedings can resolve parties dispute conclusively if it meets certain criteria which qualifies it for recognition in the common law. And so the ability to enforce a foreign judgement in Singapore is a third and very important way parties to Singapore proceedings can bring those proceedings to an end. Parties to a dispute with connection to Singapore can resolve that dispute not by litigating in Singapore but by litigating elsewhere and enforcing the judgement in Singapore where the judgement debtor has assets. So to be more precise, a recognised foreign judgement, which as we will go through in a bit, means that a foreign judgement which fulfills the requirements for recognition and against which no defences to recognition can be raised, can have one of two consequences. First, it can be directly enforced in Singapore if it is a foreign money judgement. Second, even if can\'t be enforced because it\'s not a money judgment, and we\'ll talk about what the term means later on in this lecture, even if it\'s not a money judgment, it can be used to stop parties to the proceedings which are currently commenced in Singapore from raising certain issues and relabricating them. So in that sense, it can also stop a short circuit or truncate the Singaporean proceedings to resolve parties dispute faster. Let\'s talk first about the requirements that a foreign dutchman must meet in order for it to be recognisable in Singapore. There is typically a laundry list recited on requirements. Andrew Yip (02:49.08) for a foreign judgement to meet before it can be recognised in Singapore. But I think we can distill these requirements into two broad requirements. First, the foreign judgement must be issued by a foreign court with jurisdiction over the judgement that, i.e. the person against whom the foreign judgement is sought to be recognised and enforced in Singapore. Second, the foreign judgement must be final and conclusive as to the merits of parties\' dispute. And we\'re going to go through these requirements now in turn. On the requirement that the foreign court must have jurisdiction over the judgment letter in question, when does the foreign court have jurisdiction in this sense? The most obvious situation is when the judgment letter was himself the person who commenced the proceedings in the foreign state. Because just as domestic proceedings, if you are the entity commencing proceedings, there is no way you can claim that the court in which you are commencing proceedings has no jurisdiction over you. That would make no sense whatsoever because if it didn\'t have jurisdiction, why are you even bringing proceedings in the first place? So that\'s the clear situation in which the foreign court will have jurisdiction over the judgment debtor. There are three other which are roughly analogous to situations where the Singapore courts will be taken to have jurisdiction over the defendant which we covered in the jurisdiction lecture. First, where the judgment debtor was the defendant in foreign proceedings but was present in the foreign state at the time the proceedings were commenced. It\'s similar to the service in requirement that we talked about in jurisdiction lecture. Second, if the judgment letter has submitted by conduct to the foreign proceedings. And third, finally, if the judgment letter was party to a jurisdiction clause choosing the foreign court in relation, and the jurisdiction clause covers the dispute that the foreign court adjudicated. Andrew Yip (04:44.042) I should point out three points on the test for the foreign court\'s jurisdiction that differ from the test for Singapore Court\'s own jurisdiction when it marks the determination whether or not should adhere an exercise to restriction over a particular dispute. First, Service is not required to establish the foreign court\'s jurisdiction over the judgment debtor. In the context of domestic jurisdiction, we saw that just because the defendant is present in the jurisdiction doesn\'t ipso facto mean that the court has jurisdiction over him. He must be served, although this can be quite easy with regards to substituted service and everything else. But presence alone, rather than service, cements the foreign court\'s jurisdiction on the president\'s head of jurisdiction. Second, we saw on the list earlier on that there was, well, there was the situation with the judgment that serves the claimant, presence, submission by conduct, and a jurisdiction clause. What is conspicuously missing from this list is anything equivalent to the sufficient nexus head of jurisdiction that is contained in practice direction 63.3, the situation where there is some kind of normative connection between Singapore and the defendant, which justifies Singapore courts serving the defendant out of jurisdiction even in the absence of a jurisdiction clause. Nothing like this exists in relation to the test that Singapore courts will apply to recognise the foreign court is having international jurisdiction. Andrew Yip (06:17.006) Third, there are subtle differences in the test for submission by conduct in relation to the Singapore court and submission by conduct in relation to the foreign court, but we\'re not going to really cover these subtle differences now because the extent of the difference after the 2021 rules of court have been passed are questionable. So we\'ll just assume for purpose of this course that they are identical. I want the requirement that the foreign judgment be final and conclusive as to the merits. It\'s somewhat hard to state the content this requirement without being circular because a judgment is final and conclusive when it is final and conclusive. And for working definition thereof, think it\'s easiest to turn to your civil procedure module and to see really the situations when a Singapore court will consider a domestic judgment final and conclusive. Usually when the judgment is a judgment delivered on the facts and on the law, when the court rules to the relevant standard of proof that one party has or has not, or the claimant has or has not established its claim. And that is a judgment that\'s final and conclusive. It can be enforced, in other words, it can be executed in domestic proceedings without more. Similarly, we can say that a foreign judgment is final and conclusive as to the merits when it cannot be varied, reopened, or set aside by the court that delivered it,.e. when it\'s delivered on the facts and on the law. So some examples of foreign judgments which are not final and conclusive are simply foreign orders stating that one party is entitled to an interim order protecting its status quo before trial. Usually such interim injunctions are issued with some kind of assessment of the merits of parties case but that assessment is not binding on anybody. It doesn\'t conclusively resolve the merits of the case of the party seeking the foreign injunction. It\'s just a prima facie determination of whether or not the party has a good enough case on the merits of his claim or her claim so that the foreign injunction can Similarly, any kind of determination, for example, on striking out application in the foreign court that the claimant there is a good arguable case on the merits, is not final and conclusive as to the merits of that claim. It\'s just a determination that the claim should go to trial in the foreign court. It\'s not a determination at trial at the foreign court of the substance of the claim. Andrew Yip (08:38.968) Two further points should be made about this final and conclusive requirement. First, A foreign judgement can still be final or conclusive on the merits of parties\' dispute if it was issued on a first instance decision in the foreign jurisdiction. Just because a foreign judgement can be appealed to a higher court doesn\'t mean it\'s not final or conclusive. Just as the fact that a domestic judgement can be appealed to the Court of Appeal doesn\'t mean that it\'s not final or conclusive in the sense that it can be executable or enforceable in Singapore already. Second, just because the foreign judgement sought to be enforced is issued on an interlocutory application in foreign state doesn\'t mean it\'s not final or conclusive. A lot turns on what the foreign judgment is said to be final and conclusive on. It will not be final and conclusive on the merits of parties\' claim. Definitely not, right? Because that\'s what an interlocutory order is. But there are some legal issues which tend to be determined finally and conclusively even in interlocutory orders. For example, if the foreign court decides whether or not it should stay proceedings and party seeking a state of foreign proceedings says that, I have a Singapore jurisdiction clause and this jurisdiction clause should justify you staying proceedings unless maybe you have strong cause not to. And the foreign court says, wait a minute, you said that the Singapore jurisdiction clause, but the clause is procured by fraud or by duress or the clause never existed. Andrew Yip (10:11.084) it never existed in the first place, there\'s no agreement invading this clause, then the foreign court will, in order to decide that it should exercise its jurisdiction in an interlocutory application by the party seeking to resist the proceedings, will have determined finally and conclusively whether or not, in fact, the Singapore Jurisdiction Clause exists. So if the issue arises in Singapore as to whether or not the Jurisdiction Clause exists in the first place, Singapore courts will be entitled to have the foreign judgment on that point recognised, even though any other issue as regards to the arguably of the claimant\'s case in the foreign court will not be an issue on which the foreign judgment is final and conclusive. We now move on to the defences that the judgment debtor can raise to resist the recognition of the foreign judgment in Singapore. There are typically, again, laundry list of defences that are cited to recognition, but we\'re going to concentrate on three here. Breaches of natural justice, fraud, and public policy exception. Andrew Yip (11:23.382) Speaking first about natural justice, rules of natural justice, as any public lawyer will tell you, relate to parties\' right to a fair trial, be it in Singapore or in foreign court. So as the Court of Appeal put it in Paulus Tenus, the heart of the issue of natural justice lies in issues related to the right to a fair trial, like the concepts of notice of the foreign proceedings, and of an opportunity to be heard before the foreign proceedings. This brings us then to two concrete requirements that the foreign judgment must fulfill in order for it not to be in breach of natural justice. First, the judgment debtor must have had notice of foreign proceedings, either because he was served with alternating process in the foreign state. We talked about how service was not a requirement for jurisdiction, but it is a requirement for the foreign judgment not to be in breach of natural justice. Or even if there\'s no service, the\... the debtor was somehow informed of the foreign proceedings either by the claimants or by some third party. If the foreign judgment debtor did not have notice of the foreign proceedings, then he could not plausibly have defended himself for those foreign proceedings and therefore he could not plausibly be said to have had the right to a fair trial. Relatedly, even if the foreign judgment debtor knew of the foreign proceedings but had no opportunity to be heard in the foreign proceedings, for example, if the question as to whether or not the judgment debtor was liable or not liable for the specific issue on which the foreign judgment is being relied on in Singapore was not an issue which the foreign court was willing to entertain or was willing to hear the foreign judgment debtor\'s arguments on, then\... If the foreign judgement actor could not meaningfully register his protest against a decision being issued against him on that particular point, he had no opportunity to be heard on those points and therefore he had no fair trial in relation to that point decided by the foreign court. Andrew Yip (13:23.02) Moving on now to the defence of fraud, an allegation that the judgement creditor procured the foreign judgement by fraud may support a defence against the foreign judgements recognition in Singapore. But the extent of this defence and what the foreign judgement debtor must show to make out this defence depends on the kind of fraud the judgement debtor is alleging. So there are two kinds of frauds relevant to us here. The first you might call intrinsic fraud or fraud which constitutes a sabotaging of the legitimacy of or the justness of the fraud proceedings from within the proceedings themselves. Examples include forging evidence or concocting testimony before the fraud proceedings. So this is all fraudulent. This were the amount of criminal offences in Singapore. and it therefore provides a defense to a foreign judgment if the foreign judgment was procured by fraud,.e. if the intrinsic fraud substantially led to the foreign judgment being decided the way it was. But for intrinsic The judgment letter can rely on such fraud to establish the defense of fraud only if the evidence in which the fraud was based was not considered by the foreign court. If the judgment letter had said before the foreign court, Your Honor, the judgment creditor or the plaintiff here is obviously lying. He\'s obviously forged evidence, obviously comproperate testimony. In this situation, if the foreign court looks at the claimant\'s conduct and says, well, I don\'t think so. Substantially, I think actually that on the evidence there fraud, this evidence being relied on here is legitimate, then the foreign judgment debtor can\'t come before the Singapore court and relitigate this issue again. If the foreign court was biased in not finding that the\... Andrew Yip (15:19.842) the foreign judgment creditor was being intrinsically fraudulent in this sense, then this might go towards a breach of natural justice because then the foreign judgment debtor had no opportunity to be heard at this point. putting aside for the instance of situation where the judge himself is biased, which goes more towards natural justice, where the judge is not biased and the foreign judge has already ruled on the point of intrinsic fraud, then the foreign judgment debtor cannot relitigate the point of intrinsic fraud before the Singapore court unless there\'s new evidence that was not considered before the foreign court, which suggests a finding of intrinsic fraud. But there is another kind of fraud which involves sabotaging the trial in the foreign court from the outside. And this is called, or the case is called, this extrinsic fraud. Examples include bribing witnesses, tricking the judgment debtor into settling the case on grounds which are misrepresentative, or obtaining default judgment without full -infracted disclosure. These all involve a certain kind of opportunism of sharp practice that the foreign court would not have really ruled on, that the foreign court would not really have had the opportunity to consider. And so the judgment that can bring these points before the Singapore court to as a defense against the foreign judgements recognition, even if they weren\'t considered by the foreign court. when, to summarize, when the fraud is intrinsic fraud, the judgment that can rely on as a defense only if the points were only based on evidence that was not considered by the foreign court. But when the fraud alleged to support the fraud defence is extrinsic fraud, the judgment debtor can raise the defence before Singapore courts on evidence which already was considered by the foreign court. So criticisms have been made about this distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud and how it\'s treated by the courts. may be an issue which is ripe for reconsideration before Singapore\'s courts. But until that time comes, the rules that we\'ve discussed here remain good law in Singapore. The third and final defence we\'re going to talk about is the situation when the recognition of the foreign judgement would be contrary to public policy or fundamental public policy in Singapore. This is roughly the same exception as the exception to choice of law rules, where the recognition of a foreign law or rule of law would be contrary to fundamental public policy in Singapore. Likewise, when recognition of a foreign judgement is contrary to fundamental public policy in Singapore, so too can it not be recognised. So in general, it operates the Andrew Yip (17:48.282) and I will refer you back again to the cases that we considered and the points that we considered on this point in the Choice of Law lecture. But I should also highlight two specific instances where a foreign judgment is contrary to public policy, which are more relevant in the foreign judgment context and the Choice of Law context, which is therefore worth our attention here. First, there\'s a situation where the foreign judgment is issued by the foreign court applying Singapore law under the foreign state\'s of Law rules. But the application of Singapore law was wrong, and not just wrong, it amounted to a manifest, patent or egregious error. The Court of Appeals said in Obita and Merck that this might amount to a situation where it would be contrary to public policy to recognize that foreign judgement in Singapore, although it left the question open. The justification again for this was that Singapore courts have a specific constitutional duty to ensure that Singapore law is applied correctly, or at least applied not incredibly wrongly in the Court. This point is left open and so it\'s an open question whether or not future courts will take up this point but just be aware that the dictator exists. A second and clearer grounds on which a foreign judgement will not be recognized for being contrary to fundamental Singaporean public policy is when the foreign judgement is procured by the foreign judgement creditor contrary to an attitude injunction that had actually been issued by the Singapore Court against that foreign judgement creditor, stop the foreign proceedings. So this situation, either because there was Singapore Jurisdiction Clause or because the foreign proceedings were vexatious and oppressive, the Singapore Court has already issued an act to sue injunction against the foreign judgment creditor. There\'s therefore great reason for the Singapore Court to say, well, we\'ve told you not to continue the foreign proceedings. You\'ve chosen to do so anyway. And now you\'re getting the foreign judgment that you\'ve gotten in those proceedings, which we didn\'t want you to continue and try and enforce it in Singapore against assets that the judgment debtor has in Singapore. It\'s completely contrary to the Singapore Courts\' public policy to do this because if we allow you to enforce the judgment now, we allow you to blatantly disregard our orders in contempt of court. So there\'s no reason why we should enforce this judgment now. So if a foreign judgment fulfills the requirements for recognition and there are no defences that can be raised against it, it can be recognized. And what are the consequences of this? Andrew Yip (20:14.604) There are two potentially different consequences that a foreign judgment which is recognised can lead to. First, it can be enforced, but only if it\'s a money judgment. And second, it can be used to stop parties in Singapore proceedings from raising issues which were determined by the foreign court in the foreign judgment, but only if the other requirements for a stopper are met. And we\'re going to go through these two consequences of recognition in greater detail now. Now a foreign judgement can be enforced via an action for an agreed sum i.e. a debt action and this will usually involve the foreign judgement creditor seeking summary judgement against the judgement debtor. Just as when there is a contractual debt arising from an agreement to pay a specific sum of money, this situation, generally the claimant will be able to sue the judgment debtor and get a summary judgment simply to pay the contractual debt. So too can the claimant get summary judgment against the judgment debtor for a judgment debt, provided of course the foreign judgment is recognizable. So this is very easy to do when the judgment debtor is in Singapore, but even if the judgment debtor is outside Singapore, This is also very easy to do. So you can generally serve a judgment debtor outside Singapore if he has assets in Singapore, which is the only reason really you\'re going to be enforcing a foreign judgment against him in Singapore. Because there is always a jurisdictional nexus under Praxis direction 63.3m which allows the Singapore court to grant you to serve the judgment debtor out of jurisdiction if it relates to a claim to enforce any judgment including foreign judgment. And if the foreign judgment debtor has assets in Singapore, then Singapore will always be the natural for any claim to enforce the foreign judgment because you\'re only going to ever enforce that against assets. Note however that Andrew Yip (22:06.081) Because the foreign judgement can only be enforced to a debt action or action for an agreed sum, the foreign judgement must be precisely that, a foreign judgement for an agreed sum, for a predetermined and quantified or easily quantifiable sum, not a sum that is yet to be taxed or a sum that is yet to be quantified by some kind of complex procedure, or a indeed predetermined and left to be determined on the basis of a yet undetermined extent of liability of the judgement debtor. will a foreign judgment be enforceable if it\'s in judgment issuing where the judgment creditor obtains an injunction or an order for specific performance or declaration of constructive trust or any other proprietary remedy. All of these are non -enforceable by a debt action and so cannot be enforced at all. Only where the foreign judgment is for a definite sum of money can it be enforced in Singapore. But even if a foreign judgement can\'t be enforced in Singapore, you can still use it to stop parties to Singapore proceedings from relitigating certain points. So there are two doctrines of estoppel which are relevant as consequences of recognised foreign judgements. The first we\'re to call issue estoppel and the second we can call Henderson estoppel or the extended doctrine of rest to the cutter. And we\'re going to go to these in turn now. Now, first on issue estoppel. Say that I have been sued by someone in Malaysia in relation to breach of contract and the contract contains two substantive obligations. on me, which I was supposed to perform, but I didn\'t perform. So one of my defenses, let\'s say, is that the contract was never entered to between me and the claimant. But in Malaysia, the claimant successfully proved that first, the contract was in fact entered into between me and the defendant, me and the claimant, and second, that I reached the first obligation. Andrew Yip (24:06.574) So we\'ve got the following judgement. Let\'s say the defendant now comes to Singapore to sue me for breach of obligation 2. So he has to prove that I fact breached obligation 2 in Singaporean proceedings and this issue wasn\'t dealt with in the prior Malaysian proceedings. So in this situation, he has to re -litigate the point as to whether or not I breached obligation 2. But in order to sue me for obligation 2, he must prove that obligation 2 exists in the first place, which means he must prove that the contract between me and him existed in the first place. But this issue, the formation of the contract containing both obligations 1 and 2, was already determined in the Malaysian proceedings. And if I try to the point here as the defence that, there was no contract between me and the claimant, the claimant can say, wait a minute, we\'ve already litigated this issue in Malaysia, you are therefore estopped from raising this issue in Singaporean proceedings again because this specific issue, the formation of a contract between us has already been determined in the Malaysian proceedings. This is called issue estoppel and it\'s used when a prior foreign judgement, which can be recognised in Singapore, is used to estop parties to Singapore from litigating a specific issue decided in those earlier proceedings. In this case, the issue as to whether or not the contract has been formed. But there are three requirements that must be fulfilled for a sure stopper to be invoked. First, of course, the foreign judgment, which is being relied on to stop\... me really getting this issue in Singapore must be recognisable in Singapore, obviously. Second, the prior foreign judgement must involve the same parties to the current Singaporean proceedings. If in this case, the contract was not between just me and the judgement creditor, but me and judgement creditor in the third party, and the foreign proceedings involved me and the judgement creditor, but the domestic proceedings in Singapore involved me and the third party, the third party can\'t use the issue as topple against me, because he Andrew Yip (26:06.254) not party to these foreign proceedings. Second, the foreign court must have decided the same issue which is being litigated in Singapore. Right, so this is why, for example, foreign judgment on my breach of obligation one by the Malaysian courts cannot be used here by the judgment creditor to have stopped me on raising the point that I did not breach obligation two, because whether or not I breach obligation two was never litigated before the Malaysian courts. But what was litigated, the same issue was litigated in Malaysian courts, the issue of whether or not the contract was formed in the first place. That issue was actually litigated in the Malaysian courts, and it can therefore be used, the final judgment from Malaysia\'s courts can be used to have stopped me from really litigating same issue. But even if a foreign judgment does not qualify for issuance stoppable, it can still qualify for handisness stoppable, i.e. if the issues are not exactly the same, or if the parties before the foreign court are not exactly the same as before Singapore court, but there is something so similar about the two proceedings that it should operate as a stoppable even on these issues, which are not exactly litigated before the foreign court. So say, for example, that I want to now use the foreign judgments from the Malaysian courts to stop the from suing me here from breach of obligation 2. That issue wasn\'t really determined by the Malaysian court at all, so it can\'t qualify for issue no more. But let\'s say obligation 1 and obligation 2, though distinct obligations, are so closely related to one another that it would have seemed natural for the judgment creditor in Malaysia to have just sued me for both there. Why on earth did he not sue me for both? Especially when there was no fresh evidence arising between the Malaysian proceedings and Andrew Yip (27:53.69) Singapore proceedings, especially when there was no obstacle at all to the judgment creditor raising that claim for obligation to in Malaysia rather than in Singapore. Why didn\'t he do it? There\'s no good reason for to do it. The only good reason for him to do it, would have been, not good reason, the only reason, not a good reason for him to have done so was because he maybe wants to harass me in various jurisdictions, make me defend myself in various jurisdictions and therefore bankrupt me with my own legal fees. And that would give rise to Henderson Estoppel. that situation the Singapore court will say well\... I II Marcus, I am allowed to raise the Malaysian judgment as a stoppable on the issue of obligation two, even though the Malaysian court did not strictly decide obligation two, because well, the claimant should have sued me for that point, because it\'s so closely related to obligation one, which was the core of the claimant\'s claim in Malaysia. Similarly, let\'s say it\'s not the judgment creditor, the claimant there in the Malaysian proceedings that\'s suing me, but the third party that I mentioned earlier on. Let\'s say the third party is suing me in Singapore and I\'m trying to raise this judgement in Singapore, the Malaysian judgement in Singapore as a stoppile against the third party on the point as to whether or not I breached obligation one. It\'s weird that I would do this in situation since the outcome is that I had breached it, but let\'s put that aside for one point, right? Let\'s this aside. Or hypothetically imagine that the Malaysian court had found that I did not breach obligation one. In that situation, I\'d raise it as a stoppile on the point of the third party suing me for breach obligation one in Singapore. Let\'s say that\'s what\'s going on. Right, the third party wasn\'t party to the Malaysian proceedings, but what if the third party was so obviously related to Malaysian proceedings? Let\'s say\... Andrew Yip (29:38.262) The judgment creditor in the Malaysian proceedings was a partner in a partnership and the third party is another partner in the partnership. instead of suing in the name of the partnership, the judgment creditor sued in his personal name, but the breach of contract I committed related not just to the judgment creditor, but to this third party as well. It should have been obvious that the judgment creditor should have joined the third party as a plaintiff to those Malaysian proceedings as well, but he didn\'t and there was no good reason, let\'s say that the judgment creditor did not do this. And so in this situation, I can say, well, despite the third party not technically being party to those proceedings, I can say that, well, he should have been, and there\'s no good reason for him not to have been joined those proceedings. He knew about them, let\'s say. He was fully aware of them. He even maybe supported the judgment creditor in bringing those proceedings. Why wasn\'t he joined? The only reason why he would not have been joined is so that he could have another chance to harass me in Singapore, here by suing me in Singapore, again to bankrupt me with the expenses. my legal fees will cost me. In this situation, I can raise the adoption of Henderson and Stoppo. So in some, Henderson and Stoppow can be raised even when issue with Stoppow can\'t be raised, when the issue litigated in the foreign court is so closely related to the issues being litigated in Singapore, and there\'s no good reason why it wasn\'t litigated there, such that the judgment should operate as a stoppow on the point as well. Or the party which was not party to the foreign proceedings was so obviously related and so obviously involved, and there was no reason why they were not in fact involved in the foreign proceedings, that there\'s no reason why the foreign judgment should not operate as a stoppow against them as well. called the Extended Doctrine of Resurrected Carta. The Foreign Judgment is not technically Resurrected Carta, the points being litigated in Singapore, but it should be considered that because there\'s no real good reason why the Foreign Judgment should have been so limited the way it was. Conflict of Laws - Lecture 5: Foreign Judgements - A. Requirements for Recognition/Enforcement - 1\. International **[jurisdiction]** of the foreign court - Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte Ltd \[2014\] 2 SLR 545 (SGHC), \[13\]-\[17\] - **[the judgement must be final and conclusive]** - Pemberton v Hughes \[1899\] 1 Ch 781 (EWCA), 791-793 - **[the judgement must be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction]** - Adams v Cape Industries plc \[1990\] 1 Ch 433 (EWCA), 528, 530-531 - 2\. **[Final and conclusive]** as to the **[merits]** - The "Bunga Melati 5" \[2012\] 4 SLR 546 (SGCA), \[79\]-\[89\] - Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra \[2019\] 2 SLR 372 (SGCA), \[99\]-\[105\] - Test for the foreign court\'s jurisdiction - B. Defences - Fraud - Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier Inc \[2002\] 1 SLR(R) 515 (SGCA), \[12\]-\[23\], \[27\]-\[33\] - Breach of natural justice - Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak \[2020\] 2 SLR 1061 (SGCA), \[28\]-\[31\], \[41\]-\[70\] - Public policy - Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees Ltd \[2004\] 4 SLR(R) 690 (SGCA), \[26\]-\[32\], \[41\]-\[46\] - Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc \[2010\] 1 SLR 1129 (SGCA), \[111\]-\[113\] - Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Merck KGaA \[2021\] 1 SLR 1102 (SGCA), \[59\]-\[60\] - WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka \[2002\] 3 SLR 603 (SGHC), \[58\]-\[65\] - C. Consequences - Enforcement: money judgments - Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc \[2010\] 1 SLR 1129 (SGCA), \[13\]-\[14\], \[26\]-\[34\] - Estoppel - Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Merck KGaA \[2021\] 1 SLR 1102 (SGCA), \[35\], \[40\]-\[50\] - Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK \[2016\] 5 SLR 1322 (SGHC), \[58\]-\[65\]