Interplay with Swiss attachment

Read the PDF edition (2 pages)

Running the two systems together

A cross-border recovery between the hubs typically needs both legal systems. The Singapore court supplies the disclosure and the proprietary freeze at the exchanges. The Swiss system supplies the seizure of what reached Switzerland: a bank account, a Swiss custodian, real estate in Zug. The Swiss instruments are the civil attachment under Art. 271 ff. DEBA, which requires a Swiss asset and a prima facie claim, and the provisional measure under Art. 261 ff. CPC. To these comes the criminal seizure under Art. 263 CrimPC, which a Swiss prosecutor will order on a complaint if the facts show a Swiss predicate or a laundering offence (see Part H, Chapters III and V).

The Singapore worldwide freezing order has no direct effect in Switzerland. Swiss courts do not recognise interim orders of foreign courts as such, while the Lugano Convention does not apply to Singapore. The order is nonetheless useful in Switzerland in two ways. It is evidence supporting the Swiss attachment application that the claim exists and that the debtor is dissipating. It also binds the Swiss subsidiary of a Singapore-served exchange as a matter of the group's own compliance. Conversely a Swiss attachment order has no effect in Singapore, where the claimant must apply afresh for Mareva relief, using the Swiss order as evidence.

Recognition of the final judgment

A Singapore money judgment is recognised and enforced in Switzerland under Arts 25–27 PILA if the Singapore court had jurisdiction in the Swiss sense, the judgment is final and the defendant was properly served and not denied a hearing. Switzerland treats the defendant's domicile, a choice-of-court clause and the place of the harmful act as sufficient indirect grounds. A Singapore judgment on a proprietary claim declaring a constructive trust presents a conceptual difficulty, because Swiss law has no constructive trust. The Swiss court will nonetheless enforce the monetary orders and may recognise the declaration as a determination of a foreign-law property relationship under the Hague Trusts Convention (see Part D, Chapter IX).¹

A Swiss judgment is enforced in Singapore at common law by an action on the judgment, because Switzerland is not among the countries to which the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 has been extended.² The common-law action requires a final judgment for a fixed sum by a court of competent jurisdiction in the international sense, meaning that the defendant was present in Switzerland or submitted to the Swiss court. Chapter V returns to the subject.

Notes

1. Swiss Private International Law Act of 18 December 1987 (PILA; IPRG), SR 291, Arts 25–27 and 149a ff. ↩
2. Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959, ss 3–4, Singapore Statutes Online (consulted June 2026): extension by ministerial order to countries assuring substantial reciprocity; no order in respect of Switzerland. ↩

For general information only. This article does not constitute legal or tax advice, does not replace advice on an individual case and creates no lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the legal position as of October 2026.