Media Releases

New MOU Between Singapore and New South Wales Supreme Courts On Questions of Foreign Law

The Supreme Courts of Singapore and New South Wales (NSW) have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to work closely and expeditiously on issues arising under foreign law. 

It is the first time such a MOU has been forged between a Singapore and foreign court on a legal issue, as distinct from one related to education or mutual assistance.

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and NSW Chief Justice James Spigelman jointly made the announcement today.

Chief Justice Chan said, “The MOU recognises the importance of facilitating legal cooperation in a way that has never been done before. I look forward to its more widespread adoption in the future as a new means of determining complex questions of foreign law.”

Chief Justice Spigelman said the MOU and supporting amended Uniform Civil Procedure Rules would prove valuable in determining complex cross-border commercial and family disputes.

“Money and people are more mobile today and courts are increasingly being asked to adjudicate on matters spanning multiple jurisdictions,” he said.

“This MOU reflects both the fluid and complicated nature of some modern legal proceedings, and the growing need for closer cooperation between courts and judges.” 
The Supreme Court of Singapore was the first to refer a question of foreign law to a foreign court (Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) [2009] 2 SLR (R) 166), when it sought a determination of a question of English law. The Commercial Court in London answered the question (Westacre Investments Inc v Yugoimport SDPR [2008] EWHC 801 (Comm.)). Chief Justice Chan had referred to this case in his keynote speech at the Inter-Pacific Bar Association Conference in Singapore on  May 4, 2010 as an example to illustrate the growing cooperation between judges from different nations in the new global financial and business climate.

Usually, when an issue of foreign law arises in a case before the Supreme Court, each party to the proceedings engages an expert to provide advice and to attend court – often travelling from overseas – for cross-examination. In effect, the presiding judge is asked to adjudicate between conflicting expert witnesses.

In a speech to commercial judges in Asia in Hong Kong earlier this year, Chief Justice Spigelman said this practice was “a costly process and leads to significant ‘lost in translation’ problems, with a real prospect that an incorrect understanding of the foreign law will be adopted and applied”. In the same speech, he raised the possibility of courts directly referring questions of foreign law for determination to the court of the governing law.    

Now, consenting parties will have the option to seek a ruling directly from the foreign court about its own laws.

Chief Justices Chan and Spigelman agreed that a judgment by a foreign court would be more authoritative, accurate and expedient than opinions by conflicting expert witnesses.


Media Queries

Chew Chien Way (Ms)
Assistant Director, Corporate Communications
Supreme Court of Singapore
Tel: +65 6332 1065

Nigel Sim
Deputy Director, Corporate Communications
Supreme Court of Singapore
Tel: +65 6332 4438