Fraud and foreign judgments under Singapore law
A foreign judgment is generally not to be reviewed on the merits at the recognition and enforcement stage. Yet, an exception has always been carved out for fraud under the common law rules on the basis that ‘fraud unravels everything’ (Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702, 712 per Lord Denn...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2020
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3192 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5150/viewcontent/Fraud_and_Foreign_Judgments_under_Singapore_law.pdf |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Singapore Management University |
Language: | English |
id |
sg-smu-ink.sol_research-5150 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
sg-smu-ink.sol_research-51502020-10-16T03:35:19Z Fraud and foreign judgments under Singapore law CHONG, Adeline A foreign judgment is generally not to be reviewed on the merits at the recognition and enforcement stage. Yet, an exception has always been carved out for fraud under the common law rules on the basis that ‘fraud unravels everything’ (Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702, 712 per Lord Denning). Thus, English courts allow a judgment debtor to raise fraud at the recognition and enforcement stage even if no new evidence is adduced and fraud had been considered and dismissed by the court of origin (Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Co (1882) 10 QBD 295). This seeming anomaly with the prohibition against a review of the merits of a foreign judgment has been justified on the basis that where fraud is concerned, the court of origin is misled, not mistaken (Abouloff). The Abouloff rule has been much criticized, but successive courts have refused to depart from it (see also Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804, [116] (Privy Council)). Further, in Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd ([2019] UKSC 13, [2020] AC 450) which is a case on fraud and domestic judgments, the Supreme Court held that, generally, no requirement that the fraud could not have been uncovered with reasonable diligence in advance of obtaining the judgment would be imposed on the party seeking to set aside the judgment on the basis of fraud. As one of the oft-cited criticisms for the Abouloff rule is that it is out of step with how English courts deal with domestic judgments, Takhar may have the effect of further embedding the Abouloff rule. 2020-10-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3192 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5150/viewcontent/Fraud_and_Foreign_Judgments_under_Singapore_law.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Asian Studies Comparative and Foreign Law |
institution |
Singapore Management University |
building |
SMU Libraries |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Singapore Singapore |
content_provider |
SMU Libraries |
collection |
InK@SMU |
language |
English |
topic |
Asian Studies Comparative and Foreign Law |
spellingShingle |
Asian Studies Comparative and Foreign Law CHONG, Adeline Fraud and foreign judgments under Singapore law |
description |
A foreign judgment is generally not to be reviewed on the merits at the recognition and enforcement stage. Yet, an exception has always been carved out for fraud under the common law rules on the basis that ‘fraud unravels everything’ (Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702, 712 per Lord Denning). Thus, English courts allow a judgment debtor to raise fraud at the recognition and enforcement stage even if no new evidence is adduced and fraud had been considered and dismissed by the court of origin (Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Co (1882) 10 QBD 295). This seeming anomaly with the prohibition against a review of the merits of a foreign judgment has been justified on the basis that where fraud is concerned, the court of origin is misled, not mistaken (Abouloff). The Abouloff rule has been much criticized, but successive courts have refused to depart from it (see also Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7, [2012] 1 WLR 1804, [116] (Privy Council)). Further, in Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd ([2019] UKSC 13, [2020] AC 450) which is a case on fraud and domestic judgments, the Supreme Court held that, generally, no requirement that the fraud could not have been uncovered with reasonable diligence in advance of obtaining the judgment would be imposed on the party seeking to set aside the judgment on the basis of fraud. As one of the oft-cited criticisms for the Abouloff rule is that it is out of step with how English courts deal with domestic judgments, Takhar may have the effect of further embedding the Abouloff rule. |
format |
text |
author |
CHONG, Adeline |
author_facet |
CHONG, Adeline |
author_sort |
CHONG, Adeline |
title |
Fraud and foreign judgments under Singapore law |
title_short |
Fraud and foreign judgments under Singapore law |
title_full |
Fraud and foreign judgments under Singapore law |
title_fullStr |
Fraud and foreign judgments under Singapore law |
title_full_unstemmed |
Fraud and foreign judgments under Singapore law |
title_sort |
fraud and foreign judgments under singapore law |
publisher |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University |
publishDate |
2020 |
url |
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3192 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5150/viewcontent/Fraud_and_Foreign_Judgments_under_Singapore_law.pdf |
_version_ |
1772829475944267776 |