Nyunt v First Property Holdings Pte Ltd [2022] NSWCA 249

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Nyunt v First Property Holdings Pte Ltd [2022] NSWCA 249 Hearing dates: 2–4 March 2022 Date of orders: 06 December 2022 Decision date: 06 December 2022 Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Macfarlan JA at [154]; Gleeson JA at [155] Decision: 1. Vary order 1 made on 2 March 2017 by reducing the judgment in 1(a) by US$585,143.67 and SG$3,000 and reducing the judgment for interest in 1(b) by US$54,022.51 and SG$213.40, such that order 1 as varied reads as follows: "1. The judgment of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore in Suit No 601 of 2015 dated 7 November 2016 (Singapore Judgment) be registered as a judgment of the Supreme Court of NSW pursuant to s 6(3) of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) for the following amounts: (a) US$66,243,572.84 and SG$30,000; (b) Interest in the amount of US$1,122,111.68 and SG$508.18." 2. Amend order 2 made on 2 March 2017 by replacing the words "Singapore Judgments" with "Singapore Judgment". 3. Otherwise dismiss the appeal with costs. Catchwords: PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – foreign judgments and orders – statutory registration of judgments – setting aside registration of foreign judgments – where Singapore High Court entered default judgment against Applicant and subsequent judgment assessing damages – where both Singaporean judgments registered in New South Wales under Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) – application to set aside registration of Singapore judgments under s 7 of Foreign Judgments Act – whether foreign default judgment should be set aside in circumstances where judgment debtor knew of the existence of foreign proceedings but did not know the quantum of compensation claimed in those proceedings – whether registration contrary to public policy or should be set aside on basis that judgment debtor did not have sufficient notice of proceedings – whether judgment should be set aside on basis that judgment creditor had first sought to sue judgment debtor in Myanmar before commencing proceedings in Singapore – whether there was any "election" so as to deprive judgment creditor of benefit of non-exclusive submission to jurisdiction clause JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – registration and enforcement – setting aside registration of foreign judgments – where Singapore High Court entered default judgment against Applicant and subsequent judgment assessing damages – where both Singaporean judgments registered in New South Wales under Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) – application to set aside registration of Singapore judgments under s 7 of Foreign Judgments Act – whether foreign default judgment should be set aside in circumstances where judgment debtor knew of the existence of foreign proceedings but did not know the quantum of compensation claimed in those proceedings – whether registration contrary to public policy or should be set aside on basis that judgment debtor did not have sufficient notice of proceedings – whether judgment should be set aside on basis that judgment creditor had first sought to sue judgment debtor in Myanmar before commencing proceedings in Singapore – whether there was any "election" so as to deprive judgment creditor of benefit of non-exclusive submission to jurisdiction clause Legislation Cited: Burma Companies Act 1914 (Myanmar) ss 282, 282A Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 56 Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) ss 6, 7 Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance 1954 (ACT) s 8(1)(a)(iii) International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 (NZ) s 6(1)(c) Specific Relief Act 1877 (Myanmar) s 9 Transfer of Property Act 1882 (Myanmar) s 53 Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) s 72(1) Penal Code 1861 (Myanmar) s 114 Cases Cited: ACD Tridon Inc v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 896 Adams v Cape Industries PLC [1990] Ch 503 Adams v Cape Industries PLC [1990] Ch 433 Australian Granites Ltd v Eisenwerk Hensel Bayreuth Dipl.-Ing Burkhardt GmbH [2001] 1 Qd R 461 Barclays Bank Ltd v Piacun [1984] 2 Qd R 476 Benefit Strategies Group Inc v Prider (2005) 91 SASR 544; [2005] SASC 195 BHPB Freight Pty Ltd v Cosco Oceania Chartering Pty Ltd (2008) 168 FCR 169; [2008] FCA 551 Boele v Norsemeter Holding AS [2002] NSWCA 363 British Airways Board v Laker Airways Ltd [1985] AC 58 British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moҫambique [1893] AC 602 Brockley Cabinet Co Ltd v Pears (1972) 20 FLR 333 Clayton v Bant (2020) 272 CLR 1; [2020] HCA 44 Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 45; [2006] FCAFC 192 CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345; [1997] HCA 33 Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575; [2002] HCA 56 Esso China Inc v Mou [1999] VSC 294 Federal Treasury Enterprise (FKP) Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International BV (No 3) (2013) 300 ALR 741; [2013] FCA 85 Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 254; [2007] UKHL 40 First Property Holdings Pte Ltd v U Myo Nyunt (alias Michael Nyunt) [2020] SGHC 276 Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 160 Global Partners Fund Ltd v Babcock & Brown Ltd (in liq) (2010) 79 ACSR 383; [2010] NSWCA 196 Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571; [1996] HCA 51 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Hannigan (2020) 379 ALR 196; [2020] NSWCA 82 Jenton Overseas Investment Pte Ltd v Townsing (2008) 21 VR 241; [2008] VSC 470 Joshan v Pizza Pan Group Pty Ltd (2021) 106 NSWLR 104; [2021] NSWCA 219 Kok v Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd (2012) 323 FLR 95; [2017] WASCA 150 KR & C Co Ltd v Soon Ok Hwang (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 292 Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v Bega Cheese Ltd (2018) 358 ALR 1; [2018] FCA 549 La Donna Pty Ltd v Wolford AG (2005) 194 FLR 26; [2005] VSC 359 Lane v Questnet Ltd [2010] NZAR 210; [2009] NZCA 578 LFDB v SM (No 3) [2017] FCA 80 LFDB v SM (2017) 256 FCR 218; [2017] FCAFC 178 Marine Services Ltd v Bolton (No 1) (1992) 6 PRNZ 173 Marks v ANZ Banking Group Limited [2014] QCA 102 Maschmann v Wenzel [2007] NSWSC 850 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (formerly known as Merck & Co Inc) v Merck KGaA (formerly known as E Merck) [2021] 1 SLR 1102 U Myo Nyunt @ Michael Nyunt v First Property Holdings Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 73 Pemberton v Hughes [1899] 1 Ch 781 Pickett v Pulman (High Court of New Zealand, Auckland, 11 June 2004, unreported) Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1906) 3 CLR 479; [1906] HCA 88 PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48 Qantas Airways Ltd v Rohrlach (2021) 304 IR 218; [2021] NSWCA 48 Questnet Ltd v Lane [2008] NZAR 495 Re Dooney [1993] 2 Qd R 362 Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491; [2002] HCA 10 Rinehart v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 514; [2019] HCA 13 Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; [1994] HCA 42 Sargent v ASL Developments Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 634; [1974] HCA 40 Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming [2019] 1 SLR 779 Siskina (Cargo Owners) v Distos Compania Naviera SA [1979] AC 210 State Bank of Victoria v Parry [1989] WAR 240 Talacko v Bennett (2017) 260 CLR 124; [2017] HCA 15 Telesto Investments Ltd v UBS AG (2013) 94 ACSR 29; [2013] NSWSC 503 Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) v Effem Foods Pty Ltd (1992) 36 FCR 406 UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77; [2018] HCA 45 XPlore Technologies Corporation of America v Tough Corp Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1267 Zhang v Shanghai Wool and Jute Textile Co Ltd (2006) 201 FLR 178; [2006] VSCA 133 Texts Cited: A Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) M Davies, A S Bell, P L G Brereton and M Douglas, Nygh's Conflict of Laws in Australia (10th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2020) Commonwealth House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 29 May 1991 at 4218 (Second Reading Speech, Foreign Judgments Bill 1991 (Cth)) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Nyunt (also known as U Myo Nyunt) (Appellant) First Property Holdings Pte Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: