Court-to-court referrals and reciprocity between Chinese and Singapore courts – Conflict of Laws

By Catherine Shen, Asian Enterprise Legislation Institute

In 2023 Su 05 Xie Wai Ren No. 8 dated March 14, 2025, the Suzhou Intermediate Folks’s Courtroom of Jiangsu Province in China (Suzhou Courtroom) acknowledged and enforced civil judgment HC/S194/2022 beneath file quantity HC/JUD47/2023 by the Supreme Courtroom of Singapore (Singapore Judgment). The judgment by the Suzhou Courtroom (Suzhou Judgment) was introduced in September 2025 by the Supreme Folks’s Courtroom of China (SPC) as among the many fifth batch of Belt and Highway Initiative (BRI) mannequin instances.

Background

The applicant, Firm Golden Barley Worldwide Pte Ltd (authorized consultant Wu), requested the Suzhou Courtroom to acknowledge and implement the Singapore Judgment, together with the obligations imposed on the respondent Xiao to make cost.

The applicant claimed, amongst others, that Xiao, a director of Firm Ba, colluded with different defendants of the case and procured Firm Golden Barley into signing contracts with Firm Ba and one other firm and making prepayment, with out delivering to Firm Golden Barley the products agreed beneath these contracts. The Singapore Judgement, amongst others, ordered Xiao to pay over $6.6 million plus curiosity to Firm Golden Barley. The applicant primarily based its software on China’s Civil Process Legislation, the Interpretations of the Supreme Folks’s Courtroom on the Software of Legislation to Curiosity Accrued on Debt in the course of the Interval of Delayed Efficiency throughout Enforcement and the Memorandum of Steering between the Supreme Folks’s Courtroom of the Folks’s Republic of China and the Supreme Courtroom of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Cash Judgments in Industrial Circumstances (MOG).

The respondent Xiao, on her half, made a number of counterclaims. Amongst others, she contended that service of the Singapore paperwork was faulty as service was forwarded by the Worldwide Cooperation Bureau of the SPC fairly than the Ministry of Justice which is the competent authority designated by China to transmit overseas judicial paperwork beneath the 1965 HCCH Service Conference, and that the paperwork served on her have been copies within the English language. Xiao additionally identified that the MOG is non-binding and that the treaty between China and Singapore on judicial help in civil and industrial issues doesn’t cowl judgments recognition and enforcement. Additional, the respondent argued that the Singapore Judgment was not remaining and binding as a result of it was pending attraction amongst another defendants, making it ineligible for recognition and enforcement.

Resolution

The Suzhou Courtroom famous that courts in China and Singapore have acknowledged and enforced one another’s civil and industrial judgments because the MOG was signed in August 2018. Reciprocity due to this fact exists between the 2 jurisdictions which is required beneath Chinese language legislation for recognizing and imposing overseas judgments within the absence of any worldwide treaty on judgments recognition and enforcement signed by or acceded to by the jurisdictions involved.

The Suzhou Courtroom additionally discovered that service of the Singapore paperwork on Xiao was not faulty. The Chinese language embassy in Singapore had entrusted the Worldwide Cooperation Bureau of the SPC to help with service for case HC/S194/2022 in July 2022. One month later, the Zhangjiagang Folks’s Courtroom in Jiangsu Province (Zhangjiagang Courtroom) served these paperwork on Xiao who acknowledged receipt. Xiao then declined to take supply of the originals of these paperwork when contacted once more by the Zhangjiagang Courtroom after the originals have been subsequently forwarded by the Chinese language embassy in Singapore.

Additional, the Suzhou Courtroom discovered that the Singapore Judgment is remaining and binding. Particularly, the Suzhou Courtroom had requested the SPC to submit a Request for Help in Ascertaining Related Legal guidelines of Singapore to the Supreme Courtroom of Singapore. In its reply issued in December 2024, the Supreme Courtroom of Singapore defined the scope of software of Singapore’s Guidelines of Courtroom and the provisions therein on default judgments, which helped the Suzhou Courtroom attain its conclusion.

The Suzhou Courtroom accordingly acknowledged and enforced the Singapore Judgment.

Commentary

With this resolution, the Suzhou Courtroom continues the favorable momentum of the courts of China and Singapore recognizing one another’s civil and industrial judgments and affirms the significance and sensible software of the MOG regardless of its non-binding nature.

Additional, in line with the SPC, that is the primary time {that a} Chinese language court docket has activated the process for in search of help from a Singapore court docket to supply clarifications on related Singapore legislation. Article 19 of the MOG says Singapore courts could search help from the SPC to acquire certification that the Chinese language judgment for which enforcement is sought is remaining and conclusive. This “proper” will not be supplied within the MOG for Chinese language courts. Based on the SPC, the Suzhou Courtroom sought help from the Supreme Courtroom of Singapore primarily based on a separate instrument titled the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation between the Supreme Folks’s Courtroom of the Folks’s Republic of China and the Supreme Courtroom of the Republic of Singapore on Info on International Legislation (MOU). This MOU gives a route for referrals between the courts of the 2 jurisdictions to hunt data or clarifications on one another’s related legal guidelines. Beneath the MOU, whether it is obligatory for courts in China or Singapore to use the legislation of the opposite jurisdiction in adjudicating worldwide civil and industrial instances, a request could also be made to the related court docket within the different jurisdiction to supply data and opinions on its home legislation and judicial follow in civil and industrial issues, or issues relating thereto. The Supreme Courtroom of Singapore and the SPC are the courts designated for transmitting, and for receiving and responding to, such requests in Singapore and China, respectively. Any request needs to be responded to as quickly as potential, with discover to be given to the requesting court docket if the receiving court docket is unable to furnish a reply inside 60 days. Additional requests will also be made for extra clarifications.

In Singapore home legislation, Order 29A of the Guidelines of Courtroom 2021 empowers the Supreme Courtroom of Singapore, on the applying of a celebration or its personal movement, to transmit to a specified court docket in a selected overseas nation a request for an opinion on any query referring to the legislation of that overseas nation or to the applying of such legislation in proceedings earlier than it. To this point, China and the SPC are the one specified overseas nation and specified court docket beneath Order 29A. Primarily, Order 29A has formalized the procedures beneath the MOU for Singapore.

That is completely different from Order 29 of the Guidelines of Courtroom 2021 which presently lists New South Wales in Australia, Dubai of the United Arab Emirates and Bermuda as “specified overseas nations” and their related courts as “specified courts”. Beneath Order 29, the place in any proceedings earlier than the Supreme Courtroom of Singapore there arises any query referring to the legislation of any of these specified overseas nations or to the applying of such legislation, the Supreme Courtroom of Singapore could, on a celebration’s software or its personal movement, order that proceedings be commenced in a specified court docket in that specified overseas nation in search of a willpower of such query. The Supreme Courtroom of Singapore has in place memoranda of understanding on references of questions of legislation with the Supreme Courtroom of New South Wales, the Supreme Courtroom of Bermuda and the Dubai Worldwide Monetary Centre Courts. These memoranda of understanding all “direct” events to take steps to have the contested problem of legislation decided by the overseas court docket.

This will clarify why Order 29 is titled referrals on problems with legislation whereas Order 29A is titled requests for opinions on questions of overseas legislation. It needs to be famous that equal provisions are in place for referrals involving the Singapore Worldwide Industrial Courtroom (SICC) (SICC Guidelines, Order 15 and Order 15A).

Lastly, it could even be attention-grabbing to elucidate SPC’s lists of mannequin instances. As a civil legislation jurisdiction, China doesn’t follow Stare Decisis. Nor does it formally acknowledge the binding results of precedents. Nevertheless, the SPC does publish completely different lists of judgments which it deems of guiding worth once in a while. These judgments could be “guiding instances” which, loosely talking, are of the very best “precedent worth” and are topic to probably the most stringent choice standards. They are often “mannequin instances” that are of serious significance however are topic to much less stringent choice standards. They could even be “gazetted instances” that are judgments printed on the official SPC publication for wider reference (however not steering). Mannequin instances might also be launched for particular material areas, equivalent to mental property, monetary fraud, and so on. The Suzhou Judgment right here is among the many BRI mannequin instances which largely concern industrial disputes involving jurisdictions alongside the route of China’s BRI program.

This write-up is adaptation of an earlier submit by the Asian Enterprise Legislation Institute which could be discovered right here.