JUDGMENT

Mary Lim Thiam Suan FCJ:

[1] This was a common law action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment. This course of action was necessitated by the fact that the judgment, a judgment entered in default, emanated from the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance, and the United Arab Emirates is not a reciprocating country listed under the First Schedule to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 [REJA]. The claim was allowed at the High Court and the decision was affirmed on appeal although the Court of Appeal did vary the award on the interest rate, that it was to run from the date of the judgment in Abu Dhabi instead of from the date of decision at the High Court.

[2] On 5 October 2021, leave was granted on the following questions of law:

i. Whether a foreign judgment is enforceable by a common law action in Malaysia (the foreign country not being a First Schedule country under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act 1958 ("REJA") if the judgment is not proved as a foreign judgment or order in accordance with the Evidence Act 1950?

ii. Whether a foreign judgment purporting to be a default judgment where liability on quantum and assessment of compensation was decreed in absentia satisfies the basic rules of fair procedure and natural justice to be enforceable by way of a common law action in the Malaysian courts?

iii. In a common law action to enforce a foreign judgment not being a First Schedule country under the REJA, without the foreign judgment being proved in accordance with Chapter V of the EA 1950, whether there is a sustainable cause of action for other evidence to be admitted and weighed?

iv. In a common law action to enforce a foreign judgment not being a First Schedule country under the REJA, whether the party responding to the common law action is limited only to the defences set out in See Hua Daily News Bhd v. Tan Thien Chin & Ors [1985] 1 MLRA 436; [1986] 2 MLJ 107; ?