Downloaded from Brill.Com09/27/2021 07:20:08PM Via Free Access 186 (2010) 16 Asian Yearbook of International Law
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
State Practice 185 STATE PRACTICE Kevin Y.L. Tan - 9789004379695 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:20:08PM via free access 186 (2010) 16 Asian Yearbook of International Law Kevin Y.L. Tan - 9789004379695 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:20:08PM via free access State Practice of Asian States in the Field of International Law EDITORIAL NOTE The Editorial Board has decided to reorganize the format of this section from this issue onwards. Since the Yearbook’s inception, state practice has always been reported and written up as country reports. While this format has served us well in the intervening years, we felt that it would make a lot more sense if we reported state practice thematically, rather than geographically. This way, readers will have an opportunity to zoom in on a particular topic of interest and get a quick overview of develop- ments within the region. Of course, this reorganization cannot address our lack of coverage in some Asian states. We aim to improve on this in forthcoming volumes and thank the contributors to this section for their tireless and conscientious work. 187 Kevin Y.L. Tan - 9789004379695 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:20:08PM via free access 188 (2010) 16 Asian Yearbook of International Law STATE PRACTICE RAPPORTEURS Surendra Bhandari [Nepal] Associate Professor, Ritsumeikun University Camena Guneratne [Sri Lanka] Professor, Department of Legal Studies, Open University of Sri Lanka V.G. Hegde [India] Associate Professor, South Asian University Kanami Ishibashi [Japan] Associate Professor, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies Sumaiya Khair [Bangladesh] Of the Board of Editors; Professor of Law, University Dhaka Eleni Polymenopoulou [Pakistan] Law Lecturer, Brunel Law School Javaid Rehman [Pakistan] Of the Board of Editors; Professor of Law, Brunel Law School Kevin Y.L. Tan [Singapore] Of the Board of Editors; Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore Francis Tom Temprosa [Philippines] Faculty member, Miriam College (Maryknoll), College of Interna- tional, Humanitarian and Development Studies. Atsushi Yoshii [Japan] Professor, Meiji Gakui University Kevin Y.L. Tan - 9789004379695 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:20:08PM via free access State Practice 189 Courts and Tribunals SINGAPORE foreign judgment in personam – enforceability – recognition of foreign judgment Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace); Civil Ap- peal No 113 of 2008; 8 December 2009; [2010] 1 SLR 1129; [2009] SGCA 60. Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and V K Rajah JA Facts The respondent sought to recover a foreign gambling debt of some US$2 million incurred by the appellant, Poh when gambling at the respondent’s Caesars Palace casino in Las Vegas. This was done by a suit filed in the Singapore High Court on the basis of a 2001 judgment of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara. This judgment set aside a fraudulent transfer of Poh’s interest in a piece of property, and ordered that the property be sold to satisfy the judgment debt, and further held Poh liable for any shortfall. The Singapore High Court held that the Californian judgment was enforceable and that Poh had no defence to its enforceability. On appeal, Poh argued that the respondent’s claim was time-barred by the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) and that it was unenforceable as section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) forbade any action to “be brought or maintained in the court for recover- ing any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager or which has been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager has been made.” Judgment The Law on the Enforceability of Foreign Judgments in Singapore We propose to consider, first, … the question of whether the 2001 California Judgment was a foreign judgment that could be sued upon under Singapore law. The law on the enforceability of foreign judgments in Singapore is not in doubt, and is summarised in, inter alia, Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws (Sir Lawrence Collins, ed.), Vol 1, ¶ 14-020 Kevin Y.L. Tan - 9789004379695 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:20:08PM via free access 190 (2010) 16 Asian Yearbook of International Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 14th ed., 2006) (hereinafter “Dicey, Morris and Col- lins”) as follows: For a claim to be brought to enforce a foreign judgment, the judgment must be for a definite sum of money, which expression includes a final order for costs, e.g. in a divorce suit. It must order X, the defendant in the [enforcement] action, to pay to A, the claim- ant, a definite and actually ascertained sum of money; but if a mere arithmetical calculation is required for the ascertainment of the sum it will be treated as being ascertained; if, however, the judgment orders him to do anything else, e.g. specifically perform a contract, it will not support an action, though it may be res judicata. The judgment must further be for a sum other than a sum payable in respect of taxes or the like, or in respect of a fine or other penalty. An in personam final and conclusive foreign judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, which is also a judgment for a definite sum of money (hereafter called a “foreign money judgment”), is enforceable in Singapore unless: (a) it was procured by fraud; or (b) its enforcement would be contrary to public policy; or (c) the proceedings in which it was obtained were contrary to natural justice. Thus, in Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier Inc [2002] 1 SLR(R) 515, this court stated (at [12]): Quite apart from the arrangements under the RECJA or the [Re- ciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Cap 265, 2001 Rev Ed)], it is settled law that a foreign judgment in personam given by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction may be enforced by an action for the amount due under it so long as the foreign judgment is final and conclusive as between the same parties. The foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter thereby adjudicated upon and cannot be impeached for any error, whether of fact or of law: Godard v Gray (1870) LR 6 QB 139. In respect of such an action, an application for summary judgment may be made on the ground that the defendant has no defence to the claim: Grant v Easton (1883) 13 QBD 302. The local court will only refrain from enforc- ing a foreign judgment if it is shown that the plaintiff procured it by fraud, or if its enforcement would be contrary to public policy or if the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained were Kevin Y.L. Tan - 9789004379695 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:20:08PM via free access State Practice 191 opposed to natural justice: see Halsbury’s Laws of England vol 8(1) (Butterworths, 4th Ed) (1996 Reissue) paras 1008-1010. [The Court went on to hold that the Californian judgment of 2001 was not a judgment for a fixed sum of money but was instead intended to set aside a fraudulent transfer in Poh’s interest in a property. It did not create a fresh obligation on the part of Poh to pay the balance of his debt to the respondent. As such, an action for the enforcement of the foreign judgment could not be commenced by way of a common law action. Since a common law action to enforce a foreign judgment was in this case an action on an implied debt, it was subject to limitation of six years under section 6(1) (a) of the Limitation Act. The Court further held that that section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act would appear to bar a common law action on a foreign judgment whose underlying cause of action was a gambling debt.] Criminal Law PHILIPPINES Obligations relating to corruption and transnational crime – Inquiries in aid of legislation Spouses Pnp Director Eliseo D. Dela Paz (Ret.) Aand Maria Fe C. Dela Paz v. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the Senate Sergeant- at-Arms Jose Balajadia, Jr. [GR No. 184849. 13 February 2009] Retired Philippine National Police Director Eliseo D. Dela Paz was found in possession of 150,000 euros in an airport in Moscow. He was apprehended by local authorities at the airport departure area for failure to declare the amount. Together with his delegation, he was detained in Moscow for questioning. They were allowed to return to the Philippines, but the Rus- sian government confiscated the money. Awaiting Dela Paz and his wife were subpoenae issued by the Committee. The authority of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to probe the incident was questioned. The Supreme Court held that the Committee has jurisdiction to investigate the matter in aid of legislation. The Court reasoned, among others, that the matter affects Philip- pine international obligations. It took judicial notice of the fact that the Kevin Y.L. Tan - 9789004379695 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:20:08PM via free access 192 (2010) 16 Asian Yearbook of International Law Philippines is a state-party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. The two conventions contain provisions dealing with the movement of considerable foreign currency across borders.1 The matter would reflect on the country’s compliance with the obligations required under the conventions. Child Pornography An Act defining and penalizing the crime of Child Pornography, prescrib- ing penalties therefor and for other purposes Republic Act No.