Beyond the Memorandum: Shanghai Court Enforces Singapore Judgment by Confirming “Reciprocal Consensus” Under China’s New Framework

Key takeaways:

In January 2025, the Shanghai International Commercial Court confirmed “reciprocal consensus” between China and Singapore based on the MOG on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Commercial Cases.
Following the Orient Thai Airlines case (2024), this case demonstrates the practical viability of "reciprocal understanding or consensus" as one of three new tests (alongside de jure reciprocity and reciprocal commitment).
The enforcement fee in this case, calculated as a percentage of the judgment amount, as opposed to flat fees in certain scenarios, underscores the need for strategic planning in cross-border cases, as it would impact cost-benefit analyses for litigants.

On 8 Jan. 2025, the International Commercial Court of the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court (the “Shanghai Court”) issued a ruling recognizing and enforcing a monetary judgment of the Singapore High Court in the case of Zhao v Ye (2023) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 28 ((2023) 沪01协外认28号).

Recognition of Singapore judgments by Chinese courts is nothing new. In fact, this is not the first case where a Chinese court has recognized a Singapore judgment—the earliest example dates back nine years to the Kolmar case (see Kolmar Group AG v Jiangsu Textile Industry (Group) Import & Export Co., Ltd. (2016) Su 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3 ((2016) 苏01协外认3号)). Nor is it the first such case before the Shanghai Court itself, which had already recognized a Singapore High Court judgment four years ago in the Power Solar System case (see Power Solar System Co. Ltd. v Suntech Power Investment Pte. Ltd. (2019) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 22 ((2019) 沪01协外认22号)).

In this case, the Shanghai Court reaffirmed that reciprocity exists between China and Singapore. Besides, the significance of this case lies in it being the first time that a Chinese court has confirmed “reciprocal consensus” between China and Singapore based on the China-Singapore Memorandum of Guidance (MOG), following the introduction of China’s new reciprocity criteria in 2022. Such criteria include three tests: de jure reciprocity, reciprocal understanding or consensus, and reciprocal commitment. This case marks the second judicial application of “reciprocal understanding or consensus”, shortly after the case of Orient Thai Airline (2024), where a Chinese court enforced a Thai judgment, confirming reciprocal consensus between China and ASEAN countries (see Guangxi Nanning China Travel Service, Ltd. v Orient Thai Airlines Co., Ltd. (2023) Gui 71 Xie Wai Ren No. 1).

1. Case background

In 2013, Ms. Zhao, a Chinese national, and Mr. Ye, a Singaporean national, entered into a loan agreement for HKD 10 million, with a two-year term and an annual interest rate of 6%.

On 1 Apr. 2014, Ms. Zhao transferred HKD 10 million to Mr. Ye. After Mr. Ye failed to repay the loan, Ms. Zhao initiated legal proceedings in the Singapore High Court.

On 23 Aug. 2022, the General Division of the Singapore High Court issued a Tomlin Order (No. HC/ORC 5055/2022) in the case of Zhao v. Ye HC/S225/2022.

On 16 June 2023, the General Division of the Singapore High Court issued a final judgment (HC/ORC 2766/2023), ordering Mr. Ye to pay an outstanding amount of HKD 9,307,585.62, plus interest at 5.33% per year from the date of judgment until full payment.

However, Mr. Ye did not comply with the judgment. Ms. Zhao then applied to the Shanghai Court for recognition and enforcement of the Singapore judgment, after finding that a real estate in Xuhui District, Shanghai, was registered under Mr. Ye.

On 8 Jan. 2025, the Shanghai Court ruled to recognize and enforce the Singapore judgment. The application fee of CNY 43,196.34 was borne by Mr. Ye.

2. Court views

The key issue, according to the Shanghai Court, was whether a reciprocal relationship exists between China and Singapore.

To establish this, Ms. Zhao submitted two cases: one from Singapore, where a Singapore court recognized a Chinese judgment (Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v. Aksa Far East Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 16), and the other from China, where a Chinese court recognized a Singaporean judgment (Shuang Lin Construction Pte. Ltd. v. Pan (2022) Zhe 03 Xie Wai Ren No. 4 ((2022) 浙03协外认4号)), which was selected as one of the fourth batch of typical cases related to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The Shanghai Court held that the China-Singapore MOG sets out the requirements and procedures for the mutual recognition and enforcement of monetary judgments in commercial cases. This demonstrates that “China and the Republic of Singapore have reached a reciprocal consensus on the recognition and enforcement of monetary judgments in commercial cases”. Furthermore, prior cases of mutual recognition and enforcement exist. Therefore, the Shanghai Court confirmed the existence of reciprocity between China and Singapore.

3. Comments

As discussed in a previous post, “reciprocity consensus” is a subcategory of “reciprocal understanding or consensus”, which is one of the three new reciprocity tests alongside de jure reciprocity and reciprocal commitment. In 2024, the Chinese court confirmed the “presumptive reciprocity” outlined in the Nanning Statement, as a form of reciprocal consensus between China and ASEAN countries, when it recognized and enforced a Thai monetary judgment (see Guangxi Nanning China Travel Service, Ltd. v Orient Thai Airlines Co., Ltd. (2023) Gui 71 Xie Wai Ren No. 1).

This time, similarly, a form of reciprocal consensus between China and Singapore, as documented in the China-Singapore MOG, has been confirmed by the Shanghai Court. It enables, once again, this newly introduced reciprocity test to further develop from a concept into a feasible test that can be applied in judicial practice.

It is also worth noting that the application fee in this case was not inexpensive. This is because the fee was charged based on a certain percentage of the amount to be enforced, rather than on a per-piece basis (CNY 50-500), which is applicable in some cases involving recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. In fact, the question of how to calculate and pay application fees in foreign judgment recognition and enforcement cases concerns more than just money; it also directly affects strategic decisions by applicants. For more discussion on this matter, see the post “Guess How Much? 2025 Update on Expenses for Enforcing Foreign Judgments in China”.