PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd

The appeal concerned the power of the Supreme Court of Western Australia to make a freezing order in relation to a prospective judgment of a foreign court. BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd, the first respondent, had commenced proceedings in the High Court of Singapore against PT Bayan Resources TBK, the appellant, seeking damages for breach of a joint venture agreement. While these proceedings were pending, BCBC applied to the Supreme Court of Western Australia for freezing orders against Bayan's assets, including shares in an Australian company, pursuant to Order 52A of the Supreme Court Rules.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Supreme Court of Western Australia possessed the power, either under its inherent jurisdiction or statutory provisions, to grant a freezing order in support of a prospective judgment from a foreign court, specifically one that would be registrable under the *Foreign Judgments Act 1991* (Cth). Bayan contended that such an order was beyond the court's power, particularly as the Singapore proceedings were ongoing and the judgment was not yet obtained.

The High Court examined the scheme of the *Foreign Judgments Act 1991* (Cth) and the scope of the Supreme Court's inherent power. It noted that the Act provides a regime for the registration and enforcement of foreign judgments, but its application is conditional on specific regulations. The Court found that while a freezing order from the Singapore High Court might not be directly registrable under the Act, this did not preclude the Supreme Court of Western Australia from making a freezing order in support of a prospective *money judgment* from Singapore that *would* be registrable. The Court held that section 6 of the *Foreign Judgments Act 1991* (Cth), read with section 15C(a) of the *Acts Interpretation Act 1901* (Cth), vested the Supreme Court of Western Australia with federal jurisdiction to entertain applications for the registration of registrable foreign judgments, and this jurisdiction encompassed the power to make ancillary freezing orders to preserve assets pending such registration.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.