It all depends on the contract. If a clause exclusively designates the courts of Singapore and the matter is not excluded, the 2005 Hague Convention, binding on Singapore since 1 October 2016 and on the European Union since 2015, strictly limits the grounds for refusal. Otherwise, and this is the case for most maritime disputes, the judgment falls under the ordinary law of exequatur.
A Singapore shipowner obtains, before the Singapore International Commercial Court, a judgment ordering a French chartering company to pay 2.3 million US dollars in freight and demurrage. The company no longer has any business in Singapore. It does, however, operate two vessels that regularly call at Fos and Le Havre, holds accounts at a French bank, and invoices European customers. Singapore counsel wants to know what can be done in France, and under which regime.
Singapore occupies a singular place in international litigation: a major arbitration seat, home to an international commercial court created in 2015, and one of the few Asian states to have ratified the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements. This last feature makes all the difference in France, provided the contract contains the clause that triggers its application. This page sets out the dividing line between the two regimes, how each operates, the features specific to common law judgments, the case of the SICC, the relationship with arbitration and ship arrest, and then the documents and time frames.
1. The dividing line: the choice of court clause
The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements applies to international situations in civil and commercial matters where the parties have entered into an exclusive choice of court agreement. Singapore signed it on 25 March 2015, ratified it on 2 June 2016, and it has been in force there since 1 October 2016. The European Union, which exercises external competence in this field for its member states, has been bound by it since 1 October 2015. France and Singapore have therefore been, for nearly ten years, in a conventional relationship on this specific point.
The contract still needs to contain the clause. The convention applies only to exclusive choice of court agreements, concluded in writing or by any other means of communication making the information accessible, and designating the courts of a contracting state. A clause that is merely non-exclusive, or asymmetric as is often used in banking matters, or the pure and simple absence of a clause, leaves the Singapore decision outside the scope of the convention. The first step in a Singapore matter is therefore to read the contract, not the judgment.
A frequent confusion must also be set aside. Singapore is not a party to the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of judgments, the one that has applied since 1 July 2025 to United Kingdom decisions. A Singapore judgment rendered without a choice of court clause therefore benefits from no conventional regime and falls entirely under French ordinary law, like a United States judgment.
A second check, often overlooked, finally settles the regime: the subject matter of the dispute. Article 2 of the 2005 convention excludes several matters, and the list hits maritime disputes head on, or those relating to an employment contract, but also, in commercial matters, the carriage of passengers and goods, marine pollution, limitation of liability for maritime claims, general average, and towage and salvage in emergency situations. A claim for freight or demurrage arising from a contract of carriage or charterparty therefore escapes the convention, even if the contract contains an exclusive clause designating the High Court of Singapore. In the example opening this page, the creditor falls under ordinary law, even though it holds a perfectly drafted clause. The exclusion is nonetheless assessed by reference to the main subject matter of the dispute, and several neighbouring matters remain within the scope of the convention: marine insurance, shipbuilding, maritime mortgages and liens, or towage negotiated outside an emergency situation. The sorting is therefore done contract by contract, before choosing the basis for the claim.
2. Under the 2005 convention: limited grounds for refusal
Where the clause is exclusive and the matter is not excluded, which typically covers an international sale, a distribution agreement, the provision of services or a financial transaction, the judgment rendered by the court designated in the clause must be recognised and enforced in the other contracting states, and the requested court is bound by the findings of fact on which the originating court based its jurisdiction. Review of indirect competence, which dominates the debate under ordinary law, therefore almost entirely disappears: the clause establishes jurisdiction, and France does not question it.
The grounds for refusal are exhaustively listed by article 9 of the convention. They relate to the nullity of the choice of court agreement under the law of the state of the chosen court, the incapacity of a party under the law of the requested state, fraud committed in connection with a procedural matter, manifest incompatibility with the public policy of the requested state, and irreconcilability with a decision rendered in the requested state or previously elsewhere. Review of the merits is excluded. Article 11 adds a power specific to damages: recognition may be refused for the part of an award of damages that does not compensate an actual loss, which targets exemplary or punitive damages.
The documents required by the convention are a complete and certified copy of the judgment, the documents establishing that the decision is enforceable in the state of origin, proof of service where the defendant did not appear, and a certified translation. The claim is brought in France before the tribunal judiciaire, by writ of summons, under the ordinary exequatur procedure, the convention leaving each state to set its own procedure.
3. In the absence of a clause: ordinary law and its three conditions
Failing an exclusive clause, or where the matter is excluded by article 2, the Singapore judgment follows the regime applicable to any decision of a state not bound to France by a convention. The exequatur judge checks the indirect competence of the Singapore court, the compliance of the decision with international public policy in substance and in procedure, and the absence of fraud, without reviewing the merits (Cass. 1re civ., 20 February 2007, no. 05-14.082, Cornelissen). Indirect competence is assessed under the criteria of the Simitch ruling: the dispute must have a characterised connection with Singapore, the choice of forum must not be fraudulent, and French jurisdiction must not be exclusive (Cass. 1re civ., 6 February 1985, no. 83-11.241).
The connection with Singapore is easily shown in maritime files, place of contract formation, place of performance, place of payment. The difficulties come rather from procedure. Summary judgment, rendered without a full review of the merits where the defence appears to have no real prospect of success, is accepted provided the defendant was given the opportunity to argue its case, which is true of Singapore procedure. Default judgment, rendered for want of appearance, calls for more attention: the creditor must establish that the originating process was duly served in France, through the channels of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965, failing which procedural public policy will bar exequatur.
Ancillary decisions accompanying common law judgments also deserve examination. Costs orders, which place the costs and fees of the winning party on the losing party, are enforceable in France, subject to the limitation set out by the Pordea ruling of 16 March 1999 where their amount would deprive the losing party of effective access to justice. Interest orders raise no particular difficulty. Freezing injunctions, on the other hand, do not lend themselves to exequatur in the same terms as a monetary award: a creditor wishing to freeze assets in France must use French protective measures, described in our article on protective measures before exequatur.
4. The Singapore International Commercial Court
Created in 2015 as a division of the High Court, the SICC hears international commercial disputes, in English, with panels combining Singapore judges and international judges drawn notably from the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Japan or France. It applies procedural rules adapted to international litigation, allows representation by foreign lawyers under certain conditions, and may rule on foreign law as a question of law rather than as a question of fact.
Its decisions are judgments of the High Court of Singapore and circulate as such. Their quality of reasoning in fact serves the creditor before the French court: the requirement of reasoning, which forms part of procedural public policy, raises no difficulty, and the demonstration of competence as well as compliance with the adversarial principle can be read in the decision itself. Where the jurisdiction clause exclusively designated the SICC, the 2005 convention applies and the route is even more direct.
5. SIAC awards and maritime arbitration: the shortest route
Many contracts with Singapore counterparties do not lead to a judgment but to an award, rendered under the aegis of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration, or an ad hoc tribunal. These awards fall under articles 1514 and following of the code of civil procedure and the New York Convention of 10 June 1958. Exequatur is requested by an ex parte, non-adversarial application to the tribunal judiciaire de Paris, review is limited to the existence of the award and the absence of manifest contrariety to international public policy, and the order is obtained within a few weeks.
A creditor who has the choice between pursuing enforcement of a High Court judgment and that of a SIAC award over the same claim therefore has every interest in preferring the latter. In practice, this choice rarely presents itself, but the comparison informs the drafting of future contracts: for a partner holding assets in France, a Singapore arbitration clause offers the fastest route to enforcement. The regime for awards is set out in detail in our article on the exequatur of arbitral awards.
6. The maritime dimension: arresting the vessel without waiting for exequatur
In our example, the creditor does not need to wait for the end of the exequatur proceedings to act. The protective arrest of a vessel, governed by the Brussels Convention of 10 May 1952 and by articles L. 5114-20 and following of the code des transports, requires neither an enforcement title nor prior recognition: a maritime claim that appears well founded in principle is enough, and an order for payment of freight and demurrage is one, within the meaning of the list in article 1 of the convention. The vessel expected at Fos can therefore be detained on its arrival, on the order of the enforcement judge of the port.
The arrest changes the balance of the matter: the debtor shipowner almost always provides a bank guarantee or a letter from its protection and indemnity club to obtain release, and that guarantee then covers payment once the Singapore judgment is recognised, provided it was correctly worded. The creditor must bring the exequatur proceedings within a month of the arrest, on pain of lapsing. The detail of this mechanism is set out in our article on arresting a vessel on a foreign judgment.
7. Documents, translations and formalities
The Singapore file is one of the simplest to put together. It requires a certified copy of the judgment issued by the registry of the Supreme Court, a certificate attesting that the decision is enforceable and that appeals have been exhausted or have expired, proof of service of the originating process where the defendant did not appear, and a translation into French by a sworn translator. As Singapore is a party to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961, the apostille replaces consular legalisation, a formality obtained locally within a few days.
Translation deserves particular attention. Singapore judgments are long and detailed, and translating them in full represents a cost that creditors seek to avoid. Practice allows for translating the operative part in full and the grounds useful to demonstrating the conditions for exequatur, in particular those establishing the connection of the dispute with Singapore, compliance with the adversarial principle, and the compensatory nature of the sums awarded. A poorly calibrated partial translation, however, exposes the applicant to a request for a further translation, and therefore to a delay.
8. Time frames, and the reverse route
An uncontested Singapore exequatur takes six to ten months before the tribunal judiciaire, a little less where the 2005 convention applies and the debate is limited to the grounds of its article 9. Where there is a serious challenge, notably over service of a default judgment, one should count on twelve to eighteen months, then one to two years on appeal. Protective measures taken in France from day one, including ship arrest, protect the creditor during this time.
In the other direction, enforcement of a French judgment in Singapore rests either on the 2005 convention where the contract contains an exclusive clause designating the French courts, or on Singapore’s ordinary law regime, which requires a fresh action based on the foreign judgment treated as a debt. The simplified registration mechanism that Singapore offers for United Kingdom judgments does not extend to France, in the absence of a reciprocal arrangement between the two states.
The firm assists creditors seeking to recover in France, in English as in French, and acts in maritime as well as in international commercial litigation. It advises on the choice of regime applicable to the decision, the documents to gather and the timeline for protective and enforcement measures. It works with Singapore counsel for creditors seeking to recover in France, and can also be reached to discuss a downstream matter once the decision has been obtained. We have brought together in a practical guide the checks to carry out on a foreign title before bringing proceedings in France, which you can download here. Our page on international commercial litigation describes these interventions, and our contact form lets you outline a matter in a few lines.
Frequently asked questions
Does a choice of court clause change the applicable regime?
Yes, on two conditions. The clause must exclusively designate the courts of Singapore, and the matter must not appear among the exclusions of article 2 of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005, which excludes in particular the carriage of goods and several maritime matters. Where both conditions are met, the French court no longer reviews indirect competence and the grounds for refusal are limited to those of article 9. Failing that, the judgment falls under ordinary law and its three conditions arising from the Cornelissen ruling.
Is a Singapore default judgment enforceable in France?
Yes, provided the defendant was duly served. This is the most closely reviewed point: the creditor must establish that the originating process was served in France under the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965, and in time to allow a defence. A default judgment obtained after irregular service runs into procedural international public policy, whether under the 2005 convention or under ordinary law.
Can a vessel be arrested in Marseille on a Singapore judgment?
Yes, and without waiting for exequatur. The protective arrest of a vessel requires only a maritime claim that appears well founded in principle, within the meaning of the Brussels Convention of 10 May 1952 and article L. 5114-22 of the code des transports, on authorisation from the enforcement judge of the port of call. The Singapore judgment amply establishes that. Sale of the vessel, on the other hand, requires an enforcement title, and therefore exequatur, and the proceedings must be brought within a month of the arrest.
Must Singapore documents be apostilled?
Yes, and it is a light formality. Singapore is a party to the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents: the apostille issued locally replaces the consular chain and is obtained within a few days. It covers the certified copy of the judgment and the certificate attesting to its enforceability. A translation into French by a sworn translator must be added.
SIAC award or SICC judgment: which is enforced faster?
The award, without comparison. Its exequatur is obtained by an ex parte, non-adversarial application to the tribunal judiciaire de Paris, within a few weeks, the judge checking only the existence of the award and the absence of manifest contrariety to international public policy. The judgment, even where covered by the 2005 convention, requires a writ of summons, an adversarial procedure, and several months, in line with the time frames described above, even in the absence of a serious challenge.
On the same subject, in North America: enforcing a Canadian or Québec judgment in France. Common law jurisdictions: enforcing a United States or English judgment in France. On the maritime dimension: arresting a vessel in France on a foreign judgment. In Asia: enforcing a Chinese judgment in France. On the underlying framework: the six factors that determine whether a foreign title will be enforceable. Also see Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and the OHADA area.