Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore v Pacific & Orient Insurance Co. Bhd.

Appellant(s): Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore

Respondent(s): Pacific & Orient Insurance Co. Berhad

• YA Datuk Supang Lian
• YA Datuk Wong Kian Kheong
• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli

• The appellant, a Singaporean non-profit organization similar to Malaysia's Motor Insurance Bureau, sought to enforce a Singapore High Court judgment against the respondent, a Malaysian insurer.
• The Singapore judgment arose from the respondent's contractual liability under a "Special Agreement" to compensate a pillion rider injured in Singapore by a Malaysian-insured motorcyclist, despite the Malaysian policy not covering passenger liability.
• The appellant registered this judgment in the Malaysian High Court under the Registration and Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA), but the High Court set aside the registration, ruling its enforcement contrary to Malaysian public policy.

• Whether the High Court was bound by unwritten judgments of higher courts in a similar case under the doctrine of *stare decisis*.
• Whether the respondent was barred by *res judicata* from challenging the registration, given prior Singapore court decisions on the contractual agreements.
• Whether the enforcement of the registered foreign judgment would be contrary to Malaysian public policy under s 5(1)(a)(v) REJA.

• The Court of Appeal held that unwritten judgments of higher courts do not have binding precedential value under *stare decisis* as they lack a discernible *ratio decidendi*.
• The court further ruled that *res judicata* cannot override a statutory right to set aside a judgment under REJA, and Malaysian courts are not bound by foreign judgments for *stare decisis* purposes.
• The court emphasized a "restrictive approach" to public policy in the context of enforcing foreign judgments under REJA, narrower than in domestic law, to uphold international comity and reciprocity.
• The High Court erred by applying an overly broad public policy standard and considering irrelevant factors; the respondent failed to discharge the legal and evidential burden to prove the enforcement was contrary to a specific aspect of Malaysian public policy.
• The appeal was allowed, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the registration of the Singapore judgment was restored.