MOU on Foreign Law in Action: Chinese Court Enforces Second Singapore Monetary Judgment in 2025

Key takeaways:

In March 2025, China’s Suzhou Intermediate People's Court recognized and enforced a Singapore High Court monetary judgment in Golden Barley International Pte Ltd v Xiao (2023) Su 05 Xie Wai Ren No. 8.
This case is the first to utilize the MOU on Foreign Law (effective April 2022) to request information and opinion on Singapore law from Singapore courts.
The CNY 500 application fee, charged on a per-piece fee standard in this case, contrasting with percentage-based fees in some other cases, highlights cost variability that may impact strategic building in cross-border enforcement.

On 14 March 2025, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, China (the “Suzhou Court”) issued a ruling recognizing and enforcing a Singapore monetary judgment in the case of Golden Barley International Pte Ltd v Xiao (2023) Su 05 Xie Wai Ren No. 8 ((2023) 苏05协外认8号). The Singapore judgment, with file number HC/JUD47/2023, was made by the High Court of Singapore in the case of HC/S 194/2022 on 14 Feb 2023.

Just two months ago, another Singapore monetary judgment was recognized and enforced by a Shanghai court (see Zhao v Ye (2023) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 28), which has confirmed a “reciprocal consensus” between China and Singapore, based on the China-Singapore Memorandum of Guidance on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Commercial Cases (the “MOG on Foreign Judgments”).

This time, another MOU document, the China-Singapore Memorandum of Understanding on Information on Foreign Law (the “MOU on Foreign Law”), made its debut in a public court ruling and played a significant role in facilitating the recognition and enforcement of the Singapore judgment.

In this case, the Chinese courts, for the first time, initiated procedures under the MOU on Foreign Law to ascertain relevant Singapore law and received a positive response from the Singapore courts, ensuring accurate understanding and application of Singapore law. The case was also selected as one of the fifth batch of typical cases related to the Belt and Road Initiative, released on September 25, 2025.

I.Case background

In March 2022, Golden Barley International Pte Ltd (“Golden Barley”) filed a lawsuit in the Singapore High Court against seven defendants, including Chinese nationals Ms. Lin and Ms. Xiao, seeking repayment of USD 6.65 million due to a contract dispute.

The Singapore High Court served Ms. Lin and Ms. Xiao through judicial assistance and scheduled a hearing for Ms. Lin on September 22, 2022. As Ms. Lin failed to appear, the court issued judgment No. 411/2022 under Order 13 of the Rules of Court of Singapore (the “ROC 2014”),[i] ordering her to pay USD 6.65 million. A hearing for Ms. Xiao was scheduled on February 14, 2023. As Ms. Xiao also failed to appear, the court issued the Judgment HC/JUD47/2023 under the same order, ordering her to pay USD 6.65 million.

On 16 Aug. 2023, Golden Barley applied to the Suzhou Court of Jiangsu Province, the place of Ms. Xiao’s domicile, for recognition and enforcement of the Singapore High Court Judgment HC/JUD47/2023 (hereinafter the “Singapore Judgment”).

On 14 Mar. 2025, the Suzhou Court ruled to recognize and enforce the Singapore Judgment. The application fee of CNY 500 was borne by the respondent (judgment debtor) Ms. Xiao.

II. Court views

The Suzhou Court held that, since the signing of MOG on Foreign Judgments on 31 Aug. 2018, courts in both countries have mutually recognized and enforced civil judgments, establishing reciprocity between China and Singapore for such purposes. The case could thus be reviewed under the principle of reciprocity. Recognition and enforcement of a foreign civil judgment by a Chinese court requires that the judgment be legally effective. Article 7 of the MOG on Foreign Judgments states that a Singapore court judgment to be recognized and enforced in China “must be a final and conclusive judgment”.

The key issue in this case was whether the Singapore Judgment—a default judgment against Ms. Xiao (one of seven defendants)—was final and conclusive.

Based on the legal opinion provided by the Singapore Supreme Court in its “Reply to the Request for Ascertainment of Law and Opinion,” the claim against Ms. Xiao was for a liquidated demand, and she failed to enter an appearance after proper service. Thus, the judgment under Order 13 was effective and enforceable from the date of issuance. Additionally, a plaintiff may obtain a default judgment against the defendant while proceeding with the action against other defendants; the default judgment's finality is independent of subsequent rulings against other defendants. Unless set aside by the court upon the defendant's application, the default judgment is final and conclusive, binding on the defendant. Accordingly, the Suzhou Court ruled to recognize and enforce the Singapore Judgment.

III. Comments

The highlight of this case is the ascertainment of foreign law under the MOG mechanism. It marks the first instance since the MOU on Foreign Law took effect in April 2022 where a Chinese court initiated procedures to ascertain Singapore law.

The case involved interpreting the finality of the judgment and Singapore's Rules of Court. On October 18, 2024, the Suzhou Court submitted a request for legal ascertainment under the MOU on Foreign Law. Pursuant to Article 4 of the MOU, China's Supreme People's Court forwarded the request to the Singapore Supreme Court. On December 10, 2024, the Singapore Supreme Court issued its “Reply to the Request for Ascertainment of Law and Opinion.” This reply opined on whether the Singapore Judgment was final and conclusive, and attached the full text of Rule 1 of Order 13 of ROC 2014, aiding the Chinese court's understanding.

Within just two months, the relevant Singapore law was ascertained, clearly supported by the MOU on Foreign Law as a cooperative mechanism for ascertaining foreign law.

Additionally, it is noteworthy that the application fee in this case was only CNY 500, reflecting the per-piece fee standard applied by some Chinese courts in foreign judgment recognition cases. This contrasts sharply with the fee of CNY 43,196.34 in the Shanghai court's recognition of a Singapore judgment two months earlier (see Zhao v Ye (2023) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 28), which was calculated as a percentage of the enforcement amount. Which approach represents the mainstream practice in Chinese courts?

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”.

Another commentary on this case can be found HERE on the website of Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI).

[i] The Rules of Court of Singapore (Cap. 322, R 5, 2014 Rev. Ed.) (“ROC 2014”). ORDER 13, DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE TO WRIT, “Claim for liquidated demand (O.13, r. 1) 1.(1) Where a writ is endorsed with a claim against a defendant for a liquidated demand only, then, if that defendant fails to enter an appearance, the plaintiff may, after the time limited for appearing. enter final judgment against that defendant for a sum not exceeding that claimed by the writ in respect of the demand and for costs, and proceed with the action against the other defendants, if any. (2)A claim shall not be prevented from being treated for the purposes of this Rule as a claim for a liquidated demand by reason only that part of the claim is for interest accruing after the date of the writ at an unspecified rate, but any such interest shall be computed from the date of the writ to the date of entering judgment at the rate of6% per annum or at such other rate as the Chief Justice may from time to time direct.”

Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash

Contributors: Meng Yu 余萌

China Legal Trends