China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

Again! Chinese Court Recognizes a Singapore Judgment

Sun, 08 Mar 2020
Categories: Insights
Contributors: Meng Yu 余萌

avatar

 

The case of Oceanside Development Group Limited is not only the second Singapore judgment recognized by a Chinese court, but also marks the first time that a Singapore judgment has been recognized in China since the signing of China-Singapore Memorandum of Guidance on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments (Memorandum of Guidance).

On 2nd Aug. 2019, the Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court ("Wenzhou Court") in Zhejiang Province, China rendered a civil ruling “(2017) Zhe 03 Xie Wai Ren No. 7” ((2017)浙03协外认7号) on the case of Oceanside Development Group Ltd. v. Chen Tongkao & Chen Xiudan (hereinafter referred to as the "Wenzhou Case") , recognizing the judgment (Case No. S139/2012) of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore ("Singapore Court") on 15 Feb. 2013.

We obtained this information from the homepage of "Wanbang Law" on WeChat, China’s most widely used mobile social media, and found the full text of the ruling of Wenzhou Court on China Judgment Online (For the full text of the ruling, click here).

I. The implication of Wenzhou Case 

On 9 Dec. 2016, the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu Province, China, made a ruling “(2016) Su 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3” ((2016)苏01协外认3号), recognizing a civil judgment (No. 013) made by the High Court of Singapore on 22nd Oct. 2015. This was the first time that a Chinese court had recognized a Singapore judgment. In this case, the Chinese court held that since the Singapore court had recognized a Chinese judgment previously, the Chinese court could therefore recognize and enforce the qualified civil judgment of the Singapore court according to the principle of reciprocity.

On 31st Aug. 2018, the heads of the highest courts in China and Singapore signed the Memorandum of Guidance. MOG specifies how the court decisions of China and Singapore will be recognized and enforced in the other country, and states that ‘this memorandum has no binding legal effect’.

On 2nd Aug. 2019, the judgment of the said Wenzhou Case was made. This is not only the second time for a Chinese court to recognize a Singapore judgment, but also the first time for the Chinese court to do so after the signing of MOG.

It is worth noting that the applicant of Wenzhou Case submitted his application before the signing of MOG, and the Wenzhou Court ruled one year after the signing of MOG. However, MOG was not mentioned in the ruling of Wenzhou Case. We speculate that the Wenzhou Court probably made the ruling under the guidance of MOG, but due to MOG’s non-binding effect, it cannot be invoked in the ruling.

II. Brief introduction of Wenzhou Case

The applicant, Oceanside Development Group Limited, is a company registered in BVI. In Feb. 2012, due to an equity transfer dispute, it sued Chen Tongkao (陈通考) and Chen Xiudan (陈秀丹), two Chinese citizens, in a Singapore court (Case No. S139/2012).

The Singapore court issued a subpoena to the respondents, informing them that the court hearing date was 1st Feb. 2013. On the day of the hearing, the applicant appeared in court while the respondents were absent. The Singapore Court agreed that the respondents could continue to reply, on the condition that they provide a bank guarantee of 2.5 million GBP or make a payment of the equal amount to the Singapore Court before 4 p.m. on 15th Feb. 2013.

On 15 Feb. 2013, the respondents failed to perform the above obligations. The Singapore Court rendered a judgment on the same day, ordering the respondents to pay the applicant 2.5 million GBP, interest accrued thereon and court costs.

Thereafter, the applicant applied to the Wenzhou Court for recognition of the Singapore judgment, but not for enforcement. The Wenzhou Court accepted the application on 23rd Mar. 2017, and made a ruling on 2nd Aug. 2019, recognizing the Singapore judgment.

The respondents answered to the Wenzhou Court that the Singapore Court’s request for guarantee violated the principle of equal litigation rights in China’s Civil Procedure Law (CPL) and thus violated China’s public interest. However, the Wenzhou Court held that such practice was in line with the Singapore law and did not violate China’s public interest.

In addition, the Wenzhou Court held that the Singapore judgment had been partially enforced in Singapore, which could prove that the judgment had taken effect there. This means that in the future, we can use this method to prove to the Chinese court that a foreign judgment has come into force.

III. Our comments

As we have said before, China has opened the door to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments for many of its major trading partners. Another Singapore judgment being enforced is a good example. Now, we’re looking forward to opening this door wider with more cases. 

An analysis is also available on Asia Business Law Institute.

 

Cover Photo by Lily Banse(https://unsplash.com/@lvnatikk) on Unsplash

 

Contributors: Meng Yu 余萌

Save as PDF

Related laws on China Laws Portal

You might also like

First Tort Suit Under China’s Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law

In March 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) reported the first-ever tort suit under the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, enabling a Chinese firm to recover over CNY 84 million after a European partner withheld payment invoking a third country’s sanctions.

ABLI-HCCH webinar: Cross-Border Commercial Dispute Resolution – Electronic Service of Documents and Remote Taking of Evidence (July 10, 2025)

The Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) will host their fourth joint webinar on July 10, 2024 (5:00–6:10 PM SGT), focusing on electronic service of documents and remote taking of evidence under the Service and Evidence Conventions, featuring expert speakers, with an early bird discount available until June 10.

China Tightens Corporate Personal Data Audit Rules

In February 2025, China's Cyberspace Administration issued the "Measures for the Administration of Personal Information Protection Compliance Audits", effective May 1, 2025, mandating regular audits for companies, especially those processing data of over 10 million individuals, to ensure transparency and legality in personal data handling.

SPC Releases Typical Cases on Telecom Fraud Crimes

In February 2025, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) released eight typical telecom fraud cases, exposing new criminal methods and highlighting intensified judicial efforts after handling 31,000 such cases in 2023.

SPC Targets Cyber Extortion with Typical Cases

In February 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released six typical cases showcasing its crackdown on emerging cyber extortion crimes, including spreading rumors and sextortion, to encourage victims to seek legal protection.

China Issues New Rules on Foreign-Related IP Disputes

In March 2025, China issued regulations effective May 1, 2025, to enhance dispute resolution, evidence collection, and countermeasures for foreign-related intellectual property disputes, strengthening services and enterprise capabilities.

SPC Issues China’s First Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) in IP Case

In December 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued its first anti-anti-suit injunction in a patent dispute, Huawei v. Netgear, prohibiting Netgear from obstructing Huawei’s Chinese litigation, marking a significant step in global standard-essential patent governance.

SPC Launches Diversified Dispute Resolution Case Database

In February 2025, China's Supreme People's Court launched a public “Diversified Dispute Resolution Case Database” with over 200 cases, showcasing mediation and arbitration examples across various dispute types to guide alternative dispute resolution.