Section 8 of the Act provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the Act applies in all international cases where an exclusive agreement of jurisdiction is concluded in a civil or commercial matter. As regards the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the law becomes relevant where there is an exclusive court agreement or an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a State party to the Hague Convention. (d) the exclusive jurisdiction agreement was concluded in a “civil or commercial case”, since the proceedings before the English High Court appeared to be purely commercial; The applicant had submitted a certificate issued by the English High Court for Enforcement abroad (“Certificate for Enforcement”). This certificate contained certified copies of the documents in the english High Court court file, including the application form, pleadings and judgment in English. The Convention also provides for the principle of mutual recognition of court decisions, obliging States parties to render the judgments of the elected court in the same way as if they were a judgment of their own jurisdiction. Indeed, the Convention resists the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards by automatically making court decisions enforceable in another State party. This may be a game change when it comes to letting the parties opt for a dispute over arbitration. Until now, mutual enforcement of foreign judgments has been provided for in Singapore with respect to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. The combined scope of these two laws extended to 11 countries (the Commonwealth and Hong Kong respectively). In contrast, the Convention applies to 28 states, including EU Member States (with the exception of Denmark) and Mexico. While the United States and Ukraine have signed the convention, they have yet to ratify it. On October 1, 2016, the Choice of Court Agreements Act (Cap 39A, 2017 Rev Ed) (the “Act”) and Order 111 (“O 111”) of the Court Rules (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) (the “ROC”) came into force in Singapore. The main objective of the Act and the new O 111 is to implement the jurisdiction agreements of 30 June 2005 in The Hague (the “Hague Convention”), which were concluded on 25 the national effect of Singapore`s signature on 1 March 2015.
The adoption of the Hague Convention was marked by an increase in the number of courts in which judgments are mutually recognised and/or enforced, starting from the existing jurisdictions covered by the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. The Hague Convention on Jurisdictional Electoral Agreements (the “Convention”) establishes an international regime requiring Contracting States to maintain (a) exclusive choice of court arrangements for determining the courts of States Parties in international civil or commercial matters; and (b) Subject to the exceptions provided for in the Convention, recognize and enforce the decisions of the courts of other States parties designated in agreements of exclusive choice of the Tribunal. (b) has been referred to a court of the United Kingdom under an exclusive agreement of jurisdiction between the parties in favour of that court; and the enforcement of other UK court decisions would continue to be regulated by RECJA. The jurisdiction of a court is determined by law in its own jurisdiction and, while Singapore law recognizes the choice of parties to the trial to let Singaporean courts rule on their disputes, jurisdiction clauses are a complex subject. . . .