[Judgment] Singapore Courts provide guidance on finality of Chinese judgments

In Goh Heng Tee v Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries Co Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC(A) 24 dated September 16, 2026, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore (Appellate Division), among others, stated that a certification issued by the Chinese court which rendered a judgment to certify that the judgment has come into force is conclusive evidence on the finality and conclusiveness of that judgment, and that a foreign judgment is no less final merely because it is subject to an appeal or a stay of execution.

Background

The disputes at hand were previously reported in this blog post and are briefly summarized below.

Goh Heng Tee (Goh) is the appellant, and Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries Co Pte Ltd (Tonghin) is the respondent, in the proceedings before the Appellate Division. In September 2022, Tonghin obtained a judgment in its favor (First Xiamen Judgment). Goh appealed to a higher court which remanded the case back for retrial. Neither Goh nor any of his lawyers appeared in the retrial proceedings. After the retrial, the First Xiamen Judgment was revoked, and a new judgment was rendered in Tonghin’s favor (Second Xiamen Judgment).

Tonghin applied for recognition and enforcement of the Second Xiamen Judgment in Singapore. Goh resisted on the sole ground of breach of natural justice as he claimed that he did not receive any notice or document for the retrial proceedings. In November 2025, Tonghin obtained a summary judgment in its favor as an assistant registrar of the General Division of the High Court of Singapore found that the service procedures in the retiral proceedings met the requirements of substantive justice in both China and Singapore, and that the Second Xiamen Judgment is therefore not in breach of natural justice.

Among others, Goh appealed against the summary judgment but was unsuccessful (see Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries Co Pte Ltd v Goh Heng Tee ([2026] SGHC 55), 13 March 2026). Hence the current proceedings before the Appellate Division.

Decision

The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal. For present purpose, we focus on its examination of the finality and conclusiveness of Chinese judgments.

A foreign judgment is enforceable in Singapore if it is (1) in personam, (2) final and conclusive, (3) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (4) a judgment for a definite sum of money, and (5) not under any of the following circumstances: (a) it is procured by fraud; (b) its enforcement would be contrary to public policy; or (c) the proceedings in which it was obtained were contrary to natural justice.

Goh challenged that the Second Xiamen Judgment was no longer final because he applied for retrial in China in April 2026.

The Appellate Division said that a final and conclusive judgment is one that “cannot be varied, re-opened or set aside by the court that delivered it”, and that “a foreign judgment is no less final merely because it is subject to an appeal or a stay of execution”. In fact, Goh’s expert acknowledged that an application for retrial itself would not stay execution of a judgment under China’s Civil Procedure Law, and that enforcement of the judgment would be suspended only if and when the court decides to start the retrial proceeding. The mere possibility of it being set aside (by another court) or a suspension of enforcement does not necessarily render the Second Xiamen Judgment not final and conclusive.

The Appellate Division also referred to Article 19 of the Memorandum of Guidance between the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments in Commercial Cases (MOG). According to Article 19, a certification issued by a Chinese court that rendered a judgment to certify that the judgment has come into force is conclusive evidence on the finality and conclusiveness of that judgment. In the present case, a certificate was issued by the relevant Chinese court to certify that the Second Xiamen Judgment came into effect on 30 September 2024. As Goh did not challenge this certification, it serves as conclusive evidence of the finality and conclusiveness of the Second Xiamen Judgment.

Commentary

The Appellate Division judgment provides useful guidance as to the finality and conclusiveness of foreign judgments generally and Chinese judgments in particular.

In addition, the Appellate Division made multiple references to the MOG. Besides Article 19, it also notes that Article 22 and Article 23 of the MOG reflect the principles applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in general under Singapore law.

Acknowledging that the MOG is not legally binding, the Appellate Division says it nevertheless provides useful guidance on the applicable principles for mutual recognition and enforcement of Chinese and Singapore judgments, thereby serving the stated purpose of the MOG to “foster confidence in the process for enforcing the judgments of each jurisdiction in the other”.

It should not be surprising if the MOG (and other similar instruments) are to be given increasing prominence by Singapore courts in considering the recognition and enforcement in Singapore of judgments from China and other relevant jurisdictions.

The Appellate Division Judgment can be read here.

More about ABLI’s work on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Asia can be found here and here.

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this update is correct, the Asian Business Law Institute disclaims all liability and responsibility for any error or omission in this update, and in respect of anything, or the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done by any person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon the whole or any part of the contents of this update.