Strategic Technologies PTE Ltd v Procurement Bureau of the Republic of China Ministry of National Defence

Permission is required to issue execution more than six years after judgment. The judgment creditor must explain the delay and show circumstances taking the case out of the ordinary. The court applies the overriding objective and considers prejudice to the judgment debtor, although the debtor need not first establish prejudice.

A without-notice application for a third party debt order attracts a duty of full and frank disclosure. The extent of that duty depends on the circumstances, including whether the application is routine, debatable or potentially disruptive. Material non-disclosure and substantial delay may justify setting aside an interim order.

Registration of a foreign judgment under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 creates a separate English judgment for enforcement purposes.

The claimant obtained registration in England of a Singapore judgment under the Administration of Justice Act 1920 on 16 December 2004. It later pursued enforcement of a different judgment arising from the same underlying debt, unsuccessfully, and incurred substantial unpaid costs orders.

In 2022 the claimant applied for permission to issue a writ of execution against the 2004 judgment and for a third party debt order against First Commercial Bank. An interim third party debt order was made without notice. The defendant sought to set it aside and, alternatively, to set off its unpaid costs orders against any recoverable judgment debt.

The issues were whether permission should be granted, whether the interim order should stand, and how any possible set-off and interest would be calculated.

1. Permission to enforce. The application was dismissed. Under CPR rule 83.2(3), the claimant had to justify almost 17 years’ inactivity in enforcing the registered judgment and show circumstances taking the case out of the ordinary. Continuous attempts to enforce the underlying Singapore judgment elsewhere did not adequately explain the failure to enforce the separate English judgment. The claimant’s repeated and mistaken enforcement proceedings, unpaid costs orders, selective participation and resulting prejudice to the defendant supplied further reasons for refusal.
2. Nature of the registered judgment. Registration under section 9(3)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 gives the foreign judgment a separate legal existence as an English judgment. The court’s enforcement powers arise in relation to the registered English judgment, not directly from the foreign judgment.
3. Third party debt order. The interim order was set aside. A without-notice application for such an order is subject to full and frank disclosure under the overriding objective. The duty is calibrated to the application’s context. Routine information may suffice in a simple case, but more is required where the amount due, delay, set-off or consequences of the order are debatable or potentially serious. The claimant should have disclosed its failure to enforce since 2005, the substantial unpaid costs orders and its own set-off case. The non-disclosure was culpable and materially assisted the obtaining of the interim order.
4. Delay and prejudice in TPDO applications. There is no automatic six-year bar to a third party debt order. Nevertheless, the court’s discretion is governed by the overriding objective. Given the exceptionally long delay, the claimant’s prior enforcement opportunity and the defendant’s irrecoverable costs and other prejudice, it would not be just to maintain the order.
5. Alternative set-off conclusions. If enforcement had been permitted, set-off by judgment would have been ordered as at 13 March 2023. Interest under section 24(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 was not recoverable after six years from becoming due. Set-off therefore applied only to the determined recoverable liability, producing a conditional figure of USD 322,133.63.

This was a first-instance decision on enforcement applications. The judgment records earlier related enforcement proceedings between the parties, including the Court of Appeal decision [2020] EWCA Civ 1604, which set aside registration of a different judgment and made substantial costs orders. Those proceedings were not the appeal giving rise to this judgment.