Originally from Enforcement of Money Judgments

Preview Page
 

I. PRESENT ATTITUDE TOWARD ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENTS

A. Describe the receptiveness of the Malaysian government (including courts) toward enforcement of foreign money judgments

In so far as there is no evidence of intrinsic fraud in the foreign money judgment or breach of natural justice, the Malaysian Government supports the enforcement of foreign money judgments. In general the attitude of the Malaysian courts and courts appear to be generally friendly in assisting with the enforcement of foreign money judgments.

The operative statute that is in force in Malaysia which to enables foreign judgments of reciprocating countries to register their judgments in Malaysia is the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (“Act 99”).

Perhaps, a good case example to showcase the willingness of the Malaysian courts in favouring foreign judgements is the case of Aspinall Curzon Ltd v Khoo Teng Hock. This was a case on enforceability in Malaysia of a foreign judgment based on gambling debts. The plaintiff had taken out an action against the defendant in the English High courts for unpaid gambling debts and obtained a judgment. The plaintiff then applied to proceed to registration of the judgment pursuant to Section 4 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, when was resisted by the defendant on the grounds that gambling debts are not recoverable under Malaysian contract law.

The Court still proceeded to enforce the English judgment under Section 4 of the REJA and did not entertain the argument of the Defendant in its attempts to argue that such recognition and enforcement of the English judgment was the public policy of Malaysia in that the contract was in contravention of some essential principles of justice or morality including sections of the Malaysian Contracts Act.