Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Marks

The case before the Court was an application by the guarantor, seeking to set aside the registration of a foreign judgment obtained by the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ). The guarantor had provided a guarantee for a loan made by ANZ's Singapore branch. The guarantor had mortgaged land in Queensland to secure the loan. When the loan was in default, ANZ obtained judgment against the guarantor for the debt in the High Court of Singapore and also commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland to recover possession of the mortgaged land. ANZ had the Singapore judgment against the guarantor registered in the Supreme Court of Queensland under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth). The guarantor then applied to set aside the registration of the foreign judgment, contending that the courts of Singapore had no jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case and that the guarantor had not voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Singapore.

The primary legal issues for the Court to determine were whether the courts of Singapore had jurisdiction over the guarantor and, if so, whether the guarantor had voluntarily submitted to that jurisdiction. The Court examined the terms of the guarantee, which stipulated that the guarantee was to be governed by the laws of Singapore and that the guarantor irrevocably submitted to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Singapore or any other court as ANZ may elect. The Court considered whether the terms of the guarantee effectively established the jurisdiction of the Singaporean courts and whether the guarantor's submission to jurisdiction was voluntary.

The Court found that the terms of the guarantee clearly established the jurisdiction of the Singaporean courts and that the guarantor had voluntarily submitted to that jurisdiction by agreeing to the terms of the guarantee. The Court held that the guarantor's application to set aside the registration of the foreign judgment was without merit. The Court dismissed the application and ordered that the respondent must pay the applicant’s costs of the application to be assessed.