Court of Appeal Enforces Singapore Judgment regarding Insurance Coverage for Passengers of Motor Vehicles

11 September 2025

On 23 June 2025, the Court of Appeal in Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Singapore v Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd [2025] 6 AMR 385 held that a Malaysian insurer is required to prove specific aspect(s) of public policy to justify setting aside the registration of a Singapore judgment in respect of the insurance coverage for passengers of motor vehicles. The argument that the Malaysian insurers would have to rewrite motor insurance policies in Malaysia (which are not mandatorily required to provide insurance coverage for passengers of motor vehicles as compared to Singapore) does not constitute a good ground to set aside the registration of the Singapore judgment.

Facts

On or around 21 May 2018, a Malaysian citizen named Subramaniam a/I Wingdesan (“Claimant”) commenced a suit in the Singapore High Court for damages for personal injuries and other consequential losses against, among others, the rider of the motorcycle, Prem Kumar Venu (“Rider”).

The Claimant was a pillion rider on the Rider’s motorcycle and was involved in a road traffic accident in Singapore (“Accident”). At the time of the Accident, Pacific & Orient Insurance Co Bhd (“Rider’s Insurer”) had issued in Malaysia an insurance policy with regard to the Rider’s motorcycle which did not cover liability to passengers of the vehicle.

On 15 February 2022, a judgment in the sum of S$985,000.00 was entered by consent for the Claimant against the Rider in Singapore. Subsequently, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Singapore (“Singapore MIB”) commenced an action in the Singapore High Court to enforce its rights under the Special Agreement and Singapore Domestic Agreement against the Rider’s Insurer. The Special Agreement and Singapore Domestic Agreement were entered into between the Singapore MIB and the Motor Insurance Bureau of West Malaysia (“West Malaysia MIB”)¹ to govern the compensation of third-party victims of road accidents in the respective countries.

The cause papers were served on the solicitors of the Rider’s Insurer in Malaysia (who had instructions to accept service), but the Rider’s Insurer did not enter appearance before the Singapore High Court and did not therefore defend the claim in Singapore.

On 1 November 2022, the Singapore High Court entered judgment in favour of the Singapore MIB against the Rider’s Insurer for the principal judgment sum of S$985,000.00, together with interest and costs (“Singapore Judgment”).

High Court

On 23 February 2023, the Singapore MIB obtained an ex parte order in the Malaysian High Court to register the Singapore Judgment under section 4(1) of the Registration and Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (“REJA”). The Rider’s Insurer applied to the Malaysian High Court to set aside the registration of the Singapore Judgment (“Registration”).

On 23 November 2023, the Malaysian High Court allowed the Rider’s Insurer’s application to set aside the Registration on the sole ground that the Registration would be contrary to public policy in Malaysia under section 5(1)(a)(v) REJA.

Court of Appeal

The Singapore MIB appealed against the High Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Singapore MIB’s appeal and agreed with its contention that the High Court had erred in holding that the Registration was contrary to public policy in Malaysia and set aside the High Court’s decision. The Registration was restored, with costs to be paid by the Rider’s Insurer to the Singapore MIB.²

The Court of Appeal gave, inter alia, the following reasons for its decision:

The Court of Appeal referred to another Court of Appeal case of Mann Holdings Pte Ltd & Anor v Ung Yoke Hong [2019] MLJU 101 and held that the High Court is bound to apply a restrictive approach in the application of public policy pursuant to section 5(1)(a)(v) REJA. This restrictive approach is to be followed so that international comity and reciprocity – the two bases for REJA, which are embodied in section 3(2) REJA – are not undermined or rendered nugatory.
The Court of Appeal then referred to the approach of foreign courts which held that there should be a higher standard of public policy when a forum court is faced with a foreign judgment, as opposed to a domestic issue being litigated for the first time in the forum court. Foreign courts appear very reluctant to invoke the expedient of “public policy” to justify a refusal to recognise a foreign judgment, even if their local public policy would have precluded the enforcement of the underlying claim.
The Court of Appeal held that the scope of application of public policy to set aside a judgment which has been registered by the High Court, i.e. the Singapore Judgment (“Public Policy for Setting Aside”), should be narrower than the scope of operation of public policy under Malaysian domestic law.
Further, the Court of Appeal held that the legal and evidential burden to prove that the Registration would be contrary to Public Policy for Setting Aside lies on the Rider’s Insurer (who applied to set aside the Singapore Judgment) and not on the Singapore MIB (who is registering the Singapore Judgment). To discharge this burden, the Rider’s Insurer has to identify specific aspect(s) of public policy to which the registered judgment would be contrary, rather than relying on a general reference to public policy.
In terms of the Public Policy for Setting Aside, the Court of Appeal held that firstly, there is nothing in the Road Transport Act 1987 (“RTA”) which prohibits the Registration in Malaysia. Secondly, the RTA is a “social legislation” which “makes provision for the protection of third parties against risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles”³. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that the RTA should be interpreted in a “socially benevolent manner” in favour of, among others, victims of accidents involving motor vehicles who have no recourse against the negligent owners and users of motor vehicles as well as their insurers.

As the nature of the Singapore Judgment is purely a monetary judgment and the Claimant is indeed a Malaysian citizen who had suffered personal injuries due to the Accident caused by the Rider in Singapore, the Court of Appeal held that the social legislation objectives of the RTA do not support the Rider’s Insurer’s contention that the Registration is contrary to the Public Policy for Setting Aside. On the contrary, the Court of Appeal held that the social legislation objectives of the RTA supports the Registration, especially since the Singapore MIB is a non-profit organisation in Singapore to ensure that, among others, victims of road traffic accidents have recourse when there is no insurance coverage for the victims (similar to the objectives and functions of West Malaysia MIB as provided in section 89 RTA).
The Court of Appeal did not agree with the High Court’s grounds and held inter alia that:

the Registration under REJA is not a backdoor imposition of Singapore law (which requires insurance coverage for passengers of motor vehicles) in Malaysia (which does not require Malaysian motor vehicle owners/users to obtain insurance coverage for passengers of motor vehicles);
the Registration only concerns the enforcement of the specific Singapore Judgment in Malaysia against the Rider’s Insurer. There is no enforcement of Singapore law regarding mandatory insurance coverage for passengers of motor vehicles in Malaysia;
a judgment of a foreign/reciprocating country inevitably concerns an application of the law of the foreign/reciprocating country. It is not the case that every time a judgment of a foreign/reciprocating country is registered under REJA, there will be a backdoor introduction of the law of the foreign/reciprocating country in Malaysia;
in addition, the Registration does not “violate” the freedom of choice of the Malaysian motor vehicle owners/users whether to obtain insurance coverage for passengers of motor vehicles or not. In any event, this does not constitute a specific aspect of Public Policy for Setting Aside for the High Court to set aside the Registration;
the Registration also does not rewrite the motor insurance policies in Malaysia. The Registration only concerns the enforcement of the specific Singapore Judgment in Malaysia against the Rider’s Insurer. In any event, even if it is assumed that motor insurance companies have to rewrite the motor insurance policies, the financial “burden” on motor insurance companies to rewrite motor insurance policies is not equivalent to a specific aspect of Public Policy for Setting Aside for the High Court to set aside the Registration;
the argument that the Registration would increase the insurance premiums for the general Malaysian motor vehicle owners/users is not supported by any evidence, and in any event, does not constitute a specific aspect of Public Policy for Setting Aside for the High Court to set aside the Registration;
furthermore, the argument that the doctrine of privity of contract would be undermined by the Registration does not necessarily mean that public policy is involved in the case;
the argument that the Rider’s Insurer did not sign the Supplemental Agreement (which secures compensation to third-party victims of road accidents without effective insurance) also does not raise a specific aspect of Public Policy for Setting Aside. Such a fact concerned the Rider’s Insurer only; and
the argument that the “regime” for West Malaysia MIB is different from the “regime” for Singapore MIB is not relevant. This case does not concern West Malaysia MIB, and any comparison between the Singapore MIB and West Malaysia MIB was of no consequence in this case.

Comments

When it comes to the issue of whether the registration of a Singapore judgment regarding the insurance coverage for passengers of motor vehicles should be allowed or set aside in Malaysia, the legal position, as established by the Court of Appeal in this case, is that such registration ought to be allowed unless the Malaysian insurer is able to prove specific aspect(s) of public policy to justify setting aside the registration of the said Singapore judgment. Failing such proof, the Malaysian insurer is obliged to honour the Singapore judgment regarding a claim made by the passenger of motor vehicle who suffered injuries in Singapore, notwithstanding that the policy of Malaysian motor vehicle owner/user does not provide insurance coverage for passengers of motor vehicles.

As of the date of this article, we are unaware of any application made for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. As such, based on the doctrine of stare decisis, the Malaysian courts are bound by the principles established in this Court of Appeal case to apply a restrictive approach in the application of public policy under section 5(1)(a)(v) REJA. In other words, the Malaysian insurers would have a higher burden of proving specific aspect(s) of public policy to justify setting aside the registration of a Singapore judgment regarding the insurance coverage for passengers of motor vehicles.

Article by Loo Peh Fern (Partner) and Tan Yng Yiin (Associate) of the Insurance and Reinsurance Practice of Skrine.

¹ West Malaysia MIB is funded by all general insurance companies in West Malaysia and insurance companies transacting compulsory motor vehicle insurance business in West Malaysia.

² It is pertinent to note that MIB Singapore’s other ground of appeal, namely that the High Court had erred in not following a similar decision by an earlier panel of the Court of Appeal in Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore v AmGeneral Insurance Bhd (“AmGeneral”), was rejected by the Court of Appeal in the present appeal on grounds that the High Court was not bound by the AmGeneral decision due to the absence of written grounds which are essential for the doctrine of stare decisis to apply. The AmGeneral decision arose from an appeal against the High Court’s decision in Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore v AmGeneral Insurance Bhd [2020] 3 CLJ 581.

³ Mohamed Fayadh bin Abdul Gaffor & Ors v Liberty Insurance Bhd (formerly known as Uni Asia General Insurance Bhd) [2024] 6 MLJ 519 (Court of Appeal), paragraph [23(1)].

This article/alert contains general information only. It does not constitute legal advice nor an expression of legal opinion and should not be relied upon as such. For further information, kindly contact skrine@skrine.com.

Search

Court of Appeal Enforces Singapore Judgment regarding Insurance Coverage for Passengers of Motor Vehicles