JEK v JEL

Facts

JEK, the claimant, is Singaporean; JEL, the defendant, is a Swedish citizen. They married on 8 August 2014 and have two daughters with Singapore and Swedish citizenship. The marriage was dissolved by the Stockholm District Court on 7 September 2018. On 26 May 2020 that court issued a judgment requiring the defendant to pay $1,224 per month in child maintenance from 1 June 2020; it named the claimant as the children's legal representative and directed payment to her Singapore bank account.

The claimant sued in District Court Originating Claim No 914 of 2025 for alleged arrears under the Swedish judgment. The defendant applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process under O 9 r 16(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021, arguing that the Swedish judgment could not be enforced in Singapore and that the claimant was not the proper party. The Deputy Registrar dismissed his application, and he brought Registrar's Appeal No 52 of 2025 before the District Judge.

Issues

1. Whether the Stockholm District Court's child maintenance judgment can be enforced in Singapore by a common law action
2. Whether the claimant was the proper party to bring the claim
3. Whether the claim was an abuse of the court's process warranting striking out

Holding

The District Judge dismissed the Registrar's Appeal and declined to strike out the claim. Costs followed the event, and the defendant was ordered to pay the claimant costs fixed at $2,750 (inclusive of disbursements).

Reasoning

On enforceability, it was undisputed that Sweden is not a reciprocating country under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 or the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1975. The defendant relied on a ministerial answer in Parliament on 3 March 2022 to say the latter Act was the only route for foreign maintenance orders. The court found the Minister had said no such thing, only that the Act gave a streamlined route for designated reciprocating jurisdictions. Following Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace) [2010] 1 SLR 1129, a final and conclusive in personam foreign judgment for a definite sum can be sued on at common law unless obtained by fraud, contrary to public policy or contrary to natural justice. The registration statutes only save time and cost; they do not bar common law actions on other judgments.

The defendant argued that periodic maintenance is variable and not a definite sum payable now, relying on Lee Pauline Bradnam v Lee Thien Terh George [2006] SGHC 84. The court held that case concerned registration under a statute, not a common law action, and did not apply. More importantly, the claim was pleaded for accrued arrears, which had fallen due, were not subject to variation and were defined sums, so they were final and conclusive. No fraud, public policy or natural justice objection was raised.

On standing, the Swedish judgment named the claimant as the children's legal representative, ordered payment to her and appeared to contemplate that she would make any application for them. It was not clear and obvious that she lacked standing, and given the high threshold for striking out set in Tan Eng Hong v AG [2012] 4 SLR 476, the claim was not an abuse of process.

From the judgment