The Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016 (CCAA) was passed by the Singapore Parliament on 14 April 2016. It is not yet in force, but the Ministry of Law has stated that it will come into force this year. The CCAA provides for the implementation into Singapore law of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (Convention) and thereby enables Singapore to ratify the Convention, which it signed last year.
 
Once the Convention is ratified and the CCAA is in force, this will significantly expand the number of countries with which Singapore has reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of judgments by the simple registration of the judgment rather than by bringing a claim on the judgment, almost quadrupling the number from the existing 11 countries to 39. The ability to enforce a judgment by registration under a reciprocal enforcement regime is important as the grounds on which the enforcing court can refuse enforcement are usually substantially narrower than where a claim is brought on the judgment.
 
The table below sets out the countries with which Singapore has or will have reciprocal enforcement agreements and the relevant Singapore legislation under which the reciprocal enforcement of judgments is or will be available.

Unlike the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (RECJA) and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (REFJA), however, for the CCAA to apply, parties must “opt-in” to its regime by the use of an exclusive choice of court clause that names a court of one of the contracting states (Contracting State) to the Convention. Commercial entities who choose to litigate in Singapore or one of the other Contracting States or who are concerned with the recognition and enforcement of judgments between those Contracting States should develop an awareness of the Convention now in order to decide on the type of forum and dispute resolution clause to adopt in their agreements.
 
Relevance of the CCAA to different scenarios
 
The Convention and the CCAA would clearly be relevant where all parties to a transaction are from a Contracting State or operate or have assets in a Contracting State. For example, where a French company enters into an agreement with a Singapore company, neither the RECJA nor the REFJA would be of assistance, unless the French party has assets outside France, in a jurisdiction to which either of these Acts (and their relevant counterparts) applies. If parties prefer not to rely on international arbitration but to use either the French or Singapore courts to resolve any dispute that may arise, they would need to specify the courts of one of these countries as the exclusive forum for the dispute if the CCAA is to apply.
 
The Convention and the CCAA may also be relevant even where not all parties to a transaction are from a Contracting State. For example, if instead the French company enters into an agreement with a Malaysian company and if the Singapore High Court is chosen as the exclusive forum for disputes under the agreement, a judgment from it would be enforceable against the French company in France under the Convention. It would also be enforceable against the Malaysian company in Malaysia under the Malaysian Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (the Malaysian counterpart to the RECJA).
 
Where parties to a contract have significant assets in any of the countries covered by the REFJA, RECJA and the CCAA, the CCAA may be relevant for consideration as well. For example, the French company enters into an agreement with an Indonesian company. The Indonesian company has significant assets in Singapore and Malaysia against which a judgment may be enforced, and the French company has significant assets in Spain and Italy. If the Singapore High Court is chosen as the exclusive forum for disputes under the agreement, a judgment against the Indonesian company would be enforceable against its assets in Singapore and also in Malaysia under the Malaysian Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, while a judgment against the French company would, under the Convention, be enforceable against it in France and against its assets in Spain and Italy.
 
“Opting-in” to the CCAA
 
It is critical to note that a judgment by a court in a Contracting State may only be enforced by registration under the CCAA if there is an exclusive forum clause that meets the requirements of the Convention. Parties must therefore consider the issue of enforcement at the time of drafting and negotiating the agreement. For an exclusive choice of court clause to come within the CCAA, it must meet the following requirements:

• It must be in writing or by any other means of communication which renders the information communicated accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference; and
• It designates, for the purpose of deciding any dispute which arises or may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, the courts, or one or more specific courts, of one Contracting State to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other courts.  

These requirements are derived from the Convention. Parties choosing to litigate in the Singapore courts, with a view to being able to enforce the Singapore judgment in another Contracting State would likewise need to ensure that the choice of court clause meets these requirements.

Some fairly common forum selection clauses would not do so. One such example is a hybrid clause, a common form of which selects one forum as the exclusive forum for one party but permits the other party to litigate in any court of competent jurisdiction. The exclusive forum clause must therefore be carefully considered and drafted to ensure compliance and effectiveness.