14 Feb 2025
The Second Instance Judgment falls within s.6(1)(c) as a judgment of second instance given by a designated court other than a recognized Primary People's Court and is therefore 'final and conclusive' for the purpose of s.5(2)(c); consequently Lam's application to set aside the Registration Order under s.18 fails and the registration must stand.
16 Jul 2018
The court adopted the view that s6(1)(a)(iii) mandates actual notice of the foreign proceedings generally in sufficient time to defend; applied to the facts the respondent had actual notice (knew of the writ, claim, action number and engaged solicitors) and therefore the mandatory ground for setting aside registration under s6(1)(a)(iii) was not made out; registration of the Singapore judgment was upheld.
27 Nov 2017
The court accepted the careful and comprehensive handwriting expert evidence that the deed was not signed by the plaintiff, found the defendant's evidence intrinsically inconsistent and dishonest (including adding the Chinese character for 'donate' after signature and lodging a known-invalid deed at the Land Registry), concluded there was no enforceable gift or loan, and therefore declared the deed void, cancelled its Land Registry entry, dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, and ordered indemnity costs against the defendant for dishonest conduct.
1 Sept 2000
The appeal is dismissed because the Singapore judgment was for a monetary claim arising from a contract (not a judgment in respect of immovable property), the Singapore court was competent and proper notice was given to the Defendants so there was no breach of natural justice, registration could be made ex parte under the rules, and the matter is res judicata.
16 May 1996
Section 98(2) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance confines appeals from the Registrar to the Court of Appeal and imposes a 21‑day time limit; therefore Findlay J had no jurisdiction and the appeal to him was a nullity, and the plaintiff's unexplained delay and reliance on solicitor error did not justify extending time; accordingly the applications to extend time and the appeals were dismissed.
7 Dec 1995
The Court allowed the appellant's appeal because the defendant failed to plead and prove fraud or duress to the high standard required to justify setting aside the registration; there was no demonstrated breach of natural justice sufficient to vitiate the foreign summary judgment and no prima facie case meriting an issue to be tried, therefore the setting aside by the judge below was erroneous and is overturned.
7 Dec 1995
The Court allowed the Plaintiff's appeal: the Defendant failed to prove fraud, duress or breach of natural justice to the high standard required to set aside the registration of the Australian judgment; the Defence was inadequately pleaded and the alleged misrepresentations and agency confusion did not demonstrate that the judgment was obtained by fraud; there was no sufficient basis to order a trial issue; consequently the order setting aside the registration was reversed and further related matters were remitted for argument.