VIETJET AVIATION JOINT STOCK COMPANY v FW AVIATION (HOLDINGS) 1 LIMITED

Facts

FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Limited obtained orders from the English High Court against VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Company. On 1 July 2025 the Singapore High Court registered those orders as Singapore judgments under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959. FW Aviation then tried twice, on 16 and 17 July 2025, to serve the notice of registration on VietJet in Vietnam by DHL courier, without a Vietnamese translation. Both attempts failed.

On 1 August 2025 FW Aviation applied without notice for an order allowing substituted service of the registration order and notice by email, which was granted the same day. VietJet applied to set that order aside, arguing that the courier attempts were invalid under Vietnamese law and that email service of foreign process on a Vietnamese entity was not valid there. A Deputy Registrar refused to set the order aside, though she directed re-service with a translation. A High Court judge dismissed VietJet's appeal, holding that substituted service was a matter for Singapore law and that the only test was whether personal service was impractical, which it was because VietJet's representatives were at least making service difficult.

VietJet then brought Originating Application No 14 of 2026 in the Appellate Division, seeking permission to appeal.

Issues

1. Whether permission to appeal was required at all against the judge's decision
2. Whether the framework for substituted service out of Singapore under the Rules of Court 2021 raised a question of general principle or public importance
3. Whether the judge's decision showed a prima facie case of error

Holding

The Appellate Division held that permission was required and dismissed the application. It found the law on substituted service out of Singapore well established and correctly applied. It awarded FW Aviation costs of $8,000 (all in), and published the judgment to give guidance given the limited case law.

Reasoning

FW Aviation argued that no permission was needed. The court disagreed: the substituted service order was procedural and did not decide FW Aviation's rights in the registration proceedings, so the judge's refusal to set it aside was an interlocutory order made at the hearing of an interlocutory application, distinguishing Commodities Intelligence Centre Pte Ltd v Hoi Suen Logistics (HK) Ltd [2022] 1 SLR 845.

On the legal question, under the old rules the sole consideration for substituted service, in or out of Singapore, was whether personal service was impracticable. Although the 2021 rules have no direct equivalent of the old provision applying substituted service abroad, nothing suggested the drafters meant to remove this long-standing power; O 7 r 7 restated the old rule in substance, and the drafters said they were simplifying, not changing, the law. The court explained that Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person ("CHEFPIERRE") [2023] 3 SLR 1191 had not held O 8 r 2 to govern substituted service out of Singapore; it held only that O 8 r 2 is not an exhaustive list of methods, while the test remained impracticality. So substituted service out of Singapore is permitted, governed by O 7 r 7, with impracticality as the test.

There was no prima facie error. The practice direction calling for two reasonable attempts at personal service had never been an immutable rule, and courts have ordered substituted service without any prior attempt, so whether the earlier attempts were valid was irrelevant. Whether service was valid under O 8 r 2 was a separate question not before the court. The judge's remarks about court-issued documents were only queries to counsel. Any appeal would really challenge findings of fact, which was not permitted absent exceptional circumstances.

From the judgment