the likelihood and degree of prejudice, as well as the injustice to the opposite party should the court exercise (emphasis added) [38] In the present case, it has been established that the Registration Order and the Notice of Registration were served on the defendant on 20 April 2023, in accordance with the Substituted Service Order. [39] The Registration Order provides that an application to set aside the order must be made within 14 days of the service of the Notice of Registration, i.e. by 4 May 2023. However, the Setting Aside Application was only filed by the defendant four months later, on 5 September 2023. [40] I find the four-month delay in the filing of the Setting Aside Application to be unreasonable. Further, the defendant failed to provide any cogent reason for the delay. [41] The case of RHB-Cathay Securities Pte Ltd v Lim Bee Keong [1999] 5 MLJ 641 is instructive. The defendant in that case applied for an extension of time to set aside the order for registration of the foreign judgment, claiming that he was not aware of the order for registration until he was so informed by his solicitors. The order for registration was served by way of substituted service, and there was a lapse of 32 days from the last day for the defendant to make the application to set aside the registered judgment (2 February 1998) to the day the application was made (6 March 1998). The court held, at page 645F that: Counsel for the defendant had argued that there was no inordinate delay but the issue is not just delay alone. It is quite clear that the defendant has not been candid about the delay and there is every reason to say that his conduct has not been bona fide (see Ban Huat Seng Co Lid v Lee Poh Soo [1967] 1 MLJ 145). Thus, I agree with the SAR's view that no sufficient reasons have been given for the delay in filing the application for extension of time. The discretion was properly exercised and I cannot interfere with his decision in dismissing the application for extension of time. (emphasis added) [42] In the present case, the substituted service of the Registration Order and the Notice of Registration was validly effected and as such, the d Registration Order and the Notice of Registration and that he was not aware of the registration proceedings are not valid reasons for the delay in the filing of the Setting Aside Application. The court finds there to be no sufficient or cogent reason for the court to exercise its discretion to allow an extension of time for the defendant to file the Setting Aside Application. [43] Allowing an extension of time in the circumstance would also be prejudicial to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff will not be able to proceed with enforcement action against the defendant. The registration and enforcement of the Singapore Judgment is lawful and is not contrary to public policy [44] The defendant raised two arguments: a. The Registration Order and the Notice of Registration should be set aside as they are against the laws of Malaysia and the p gambling debt and/or to recover monies relating to betting or gaming activities; and b. The Credit Agreement is an agreement originating from gambling, gaming and/or wagering activities which is unlawful and/or illegal according to the laws of Malaysia. [45] I am unable to agree with the first argument that the action is a claim to retrieve a gambling debt and/or to recover monies relating to betting or gaming activities. Ultimately, the action in this court is an application to register and enforce the Singapore Judgment pursuant to REJA 1958, and not to enforce the Credit Agreement, or to sue on a gambling, gaming and/or wagering debt. [46] The courts have distinguished between an action to sue on a gaming debt and an action involving the registration of a foreign judgment. Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Lim Soo Kok [2017] 1 CLJ 363 and Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd v Ng Kong Seong [2017] 7 MLJ 188 both concern applications to register foreign judgments in respect of gaming transactions, and in these cases, it was found that the plaintiff was not suing on any gaming debt but was merely availing itself of the right of reciprocity of registering validly obtained foreign judgments pursuant to REJA 1958. The courts in both cases held that: a. The registration of foreign judgments obtained in relation to gaming transactions that are lawful in the country of origin is not against public policy; and b. The case of The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd v Datuk Seri Osu Haji Sukam [2005] 6 MLJ 760, which decided that a judgment from the United Kingdom arising from a gambling debt should not be registered on the ground of public policy, is no longer good law as the decision had been reversed by the Court of Appeal. [47] Thus, I find that the Registration Order and the enforcement of the Singapore Judgment are lawful and are not contrary to public policy. The ground relied on by the defendant to set aside the Registration Order under section 5(1)(a)(v) namely, that the enforcement of the registered judgment is against public policy in Malaysia does not apply to this case. [48] The court also finds the second argument, that the Credit Agreement is unlawful and/or illegal according to the laws of Malaysia to be wholly misconceived. The Credit Agreement is not a wagering or gaming contract, but is an agreement to provide credit facility to the defendant, pursuant to which the defendant would drawdown credit for use within the p [49] In John Lo Thau Fah v FACB Resorts Bhd [2011] MLJU 1577, the question of what constitutes a Contracts Act 1950 and the Civil Law Act 1956 was examined by the Court of Appeal. The court held as follows: We observe that neither the Civil Law Act nor the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, or the Contracts Act, defines of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1892] 2 QB 484 Hawkins A wagering contract is one by which two persons professing to hold opposite views touching the issue of a future uncertain event, mutually agree that, dependent upon the determination of that event, one shall win from the other, and that other shall pay or hand over to him, a sum of money or other stake; neither of the contracting party having any other interest in that contract than the sum of stake he will win or lose, there being no other real consideration for the making of such contract by either of th (emphasis added) [50] The Credit Agreement does not involve uncertain events. It is an agreement for the provision of a credit facility which is used by the the amount drawndown by the defendant shall be repaid to the plaintiff within seven days from the date of the drawdown. The Credit Agreement is vil Law Act 1956, and is not against public policy. Nor is it unenforceable under the laws of Malaysia. [51] It is also important to highlight that the Credit Agreement is an enforceable legal contract in Singapore, the original jurisdiction where the Credit Agreement was executed. As such, the debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff arising from the Credit Agreement is a valid debt in Singapore, which the plaintiff could sue upon. The plaintiff sued upon the Credit Agreement, resulting in the Singapore Judgment, and this action is filed by the plaintiff to register the Singapore Judgment. [52] Thus, the court is unable to agree with the that the Registration Order which is premised on a valid foreign judgment, which is in turn based on an enforceable contract in Singapore should be set aside for being contrary to public policy. The Registration Order was not obtained through fraud [53] The defendant relied on section 5(1)(a)(iv) of REJA 1958, and argued that the Registration Order was obtained through fraud and must be set aside. However, the defendant did not condescend to particulars as to how the Registration Order was obtained by fraud. [54] See Hua Daily News Bhd v Tan Thien Chin [1986] 2 MLJ 107 is of guidance on this issue. In that case, the appellants alleged that the foreign judgment had been obtained by fraud. However, the Supreme particulars of the fraud is fatal to the appellants case. [55] his affidavit in support of the Setting Aside Application is simply as follows: tersebut diperolehi secara frod dan/atau bertentangan dengan undang-undang. Isu undang-undang akan dihujahkan dengan lebih lanjut oleh peguam saya di pendengaran [56] There is no elaboration of the fraud allegation. This complete lack of particulars suggests to me that the allegation of fraud is not bona fide, and cannot be substantiated. [57] from the argument that the Registration Order is not lawful and is contrary to public policy. However, the court had earlier found that the registration of the Singapore Judgment is in compliance with the provisions of REJA 1958 and Order 67 of the Rules of Court 2012. [58] It therefore follows that the Registration Order was lawfully obtained, and the defenda must necessarily fail. The substantive merits of the Singapore Suit are not issues that should be considered by this court [59] Finally, I considered the he sum claimed by the plaintiff is excessive, punitive and/or unlawful and the calculation of interest as stated in the Registration Order and the Notice of Registration is redundant and excessive and is prohibited under the law. However, I note that yet again, the defendant failed to condescend upon particulars, this time on how the sum and interest claimed are alleged to be excessive. [60] It must be highlighted that the sum and interest imposed in the Registration Order and the Notice of Registration are based on the terms of the Singapore Judgment, which arose from the merits of the Singapore Suit. The defendant is essentially challenging the merits of the Singapore Judgment. [61] The defendant further alleged that he had been provided credit beyond the credit limit allowed under the Credit Agreement, that the handwriting in the Credit Agreement did not belong to him, that he was not provided with a copy of the Credit Agreement, and that he did not understand the terms of the Credit Agreement, These are again challenges to the merits of the Singapore Suit and the Singapore Judgment. [62] It is trite that a foreign judgment cannot be impeached or challenged on its merits. In Mann Holdings Pte Ltd & Anor v Ung Yoke Hong [2019] 6 CLJ 475, the Court of Appeal held that the merits of a judgment obtained in another jurisdiction should be challenged in the original jurisdiction of that judgment: [55] In the case of judgments from a superior court of another jurisdiction, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 is a specific statute enacted to provide the mechanism for how such judgments from recognised jurisdictions such as the High Court of Singapore may be enforced in Malaysia. That specific mechanism involves a mandatory registration process with adequate timelines enacted for setting aside the registration, before such judgment may be enforced or executed. After such judgments are registered, it is the registration that is challenged and not the merits or propriety of the judgment. That exercise must necessarily be undertaken in the original jurisdiction where the judgment was pronounced. (emphasis added) [63] Thus this court is not the appropriate forum to challenge the merits of the p It is important to highlight that the defendant entered appearance in the Singapore Suit, but did not challenge the summary judgment application filed by the plaintiff. Nor did he file any appeal against the Singapore Judgment, which was given in the summary judgment application. F.