SHIN WOOK SOON v SHIN MI RAN

Case Significance

Illustrates the common-law requirements for enforcing a foreign judgment in Malaysia and that the Limitation Act 1953 is decisive of whether such an enforcement action may proceed.

This High Court decision concerns a common-law action to enforce a foreign judgment in Malaysia and the limitation period that governs such an action. The plaintiff had obtained a judgment in default against a debtor (since deceased) at the Seoul Central District Court, and, that judgment not having been enforced, obtained a renewal judgment — also in default — for a further ten years under Korean law. By this Originating Summons the plaintiff sued the estate of the deceased debtor, represented by its administrator, to enforce the renewed Korean judgment at common law. The settled requirements are that the foreign judgment be an in personam judgment that is final and conclusive, for a specific sum, and given by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the recognised defences include want of jurisdiction, fraud, and that enforcement would be time-barred. The central contest was whether the action was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953 — in particular whether the applicable limitation period was six or twelve years, whether there had been a fresh accrual of the cause of action, and whether the lodgement of a report of change of creditor in the Korean proceedings amounted to an acknowledgment of the debt sufficient to restart time. The court dealt with and rejected the defendant's subsidiary objections — that the Korean judgment was not satisfactorily proved and that the action was wrongly commenced by Originating Summons rather than writ — finding the judgment proved and the mode of proceeding legitimate. Having weighed the limitation question, however, the court dismissed the Originating Summons with costs of RM25,000.00. The judgment illustrates the requirements for enforcing a foreign judgment at common law in Malaysia and the central role of the Limitation Act in determining whether such an action may proceed. The court's reasoning underscored that even a foreign judgment which is final, conclusive and satisfactorily proved cannot be enforced in Malaysia once the domestic limitation clock has run against the action to enforce it.