POWERCOM CO., LTD v SUNPOWER SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED

[2024] SGHC 89 High Court (General Division) 27 March 2024 • HC/S 695/2019 • 7 min read

3 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	27 March 2024
Judge	Choo Han Teck
Charges / claim	Conflict of Laws
Counsel	Aequitas Law LLP, Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP, Jolene Tan Shi Yun, K Muralitherapany, Subir Grewal, Wan Chi Kit

Source: [2024] SGHC 89, High Court (General Division), decided 27 March 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Conflict of Laws — Enforcement — Foreign award

Practice Areas

Conflict of Laws

Judges (1)

Choo Han Teck Delivered

Counsel (6)

Aequitas Law LLP Firm Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Firm Jolene Tan Shi Yun Counsel Defendant K Muralitherapany Counsel Defendant Subir Grewal Counsel Plaintiff Wan Chi Kit Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

Powercom Co, Ltd Plaintiff Sunpower Semiconductor Limited Defendant

Case Significance

Powercom Co, Ltd v Sunpower Semiconductor Ltd [2024] SGHC 89 is a reserved judgment of the General Division of the High Court (Suit No 695 of 2019), heard on 20 February and 20 March 2024 and delivered by Choo Han Teck J on 27 March 2024. Both the plaintiff, Powercom Co, Ltd, and the defendant, Sunpower Semiconductor Limited, were Taiwanese-incorporated companies. The plaintiff had sold 6-inch multi-solar cells and two photovoltaic inverters to the defendant, which did not make full payment. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant in the Taiwan Taipei District Court on 7 June 2013 for USD923,454.47 with interest at 5% per annum from 8 May 2012. The defendant's appeals to the Taiwan High Court and the Taiwan Supreme Court were dismissed, in judgments dated on or about 23 September 2014 and 18 May 2016 respectively. The present suit was filed on 11 July 2019 to enforce the District Court judgment in Singapore. Counsel for the defendant, K Muralitherapany, submitted that the claim was time-barred under the six-year limitation period in s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1959. The catchwords identify the issue as conflict of laws relating to the enforcement of a foreign award.

Summary

Powercom Co, Ltd, a Taiwanese company, sued Sunpower Semiconductor Ltd, also Taiwanese, in Singapore to enforce a 2013 Taiwan district court judgment for sums owing on goods supplied, after the defendant's appeals to the Taiwan High Court and Supreme Court were dismissed. The defendant argued the enforcement claim was time-barred under the six-year limitation period because the cause of action accrued in 2013, while the plaintiff contended it accrued only when the Taiwan Supreme Court ruled in 2016, the dispute turning on when the judgment became final and conclusive under Taiwan law. The General Division of the High Court held the judgment was final and conclusive only after 18 May 2016, found the claim not time-barred, and entered judgment for the plaintiff to enforce the foreign judgment with costs to the plaintiff.

What did Powercom v Sunpower Semiconductor [2024] SGHC 89 concern?

Decided by Choo Han Teck J on 27 March 2024, it concerned Powercom Co, Ltd's suit to enforce in Singapore a Taiwan Taipei District Court judgment of 7 June 2013 for USD923,454.47 against Sunpower Semiconductor Limited, with the defendant arguing the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1959.

What limitation argument was raised in [2024] SGHC 89?

Counsel for the defendant, K Muralitherapany, submitted that the plaintiff's claim to enforce the foreign judgment was time-barred under the six-year limitation period in s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1959, the suit having been filed on 11 July 2019.