Written by Shermane Choo
In mainland Southeast Asia (excluding the Borneo region of Indonesia), it is possible to move overland from the southern tip of Singapore all the way to northern Thailand, Cambodia, or Vietnam. This connectivity, however, brings in legal complexity when cross-border road accidents occur. The question of which country’s law applies, whether that of the accident location, the vehicle’s registration state, or both, remains a persistent challenge in the ASEAN region. By examining real-life case examples from Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand, this article explores how cross-border road accident disputes are addressed in practice. It considers the determination of the applicable law and the role of key doctrines, including lex loci delicti, forum conveniens, and double actionability, while highlighting the practical challenges of jurisdiction and enforcement. This discussion then turns to the application of reciprocal judgment enforcement for accident claims under instruments such as the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (‘REJA’). Finally, the article concludes by proposing two key reforms: enhanced judicial cooperation through a regional reciprocal enforcement framework, and harmonised motor insurance and compensation schemes across ASEAN countries.
Lex Loci Delicti: The Starting Point
The foundation principle in cross-border tort claims is lex loci delicti, the law of the place where the tort (here, the accident) occurred. When a road accident occurs in Malaysia, for example, Malaysian law governs the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties involved, regardless of whether one of the vehicles is registered in Thailand or Singapore.
Example 1: Singapore-registered car in Malaysia
If a Singaporean driver is involved in a road accident in Malaysia, Malaysian law governs the incident, as it falls within Malaysia’s territorial jurisdiction. For instance, on 9 May 2025, 27-year-old Singaporean civil servant Mr MA, driving a Singapore-registered Maserati, was charged in Johor Bahru for causing the death of a motorcyclist after allegedly making an illegal U-turn. The case is being heard in the Johor Bahru Magistrates’ Court, illustrating how Malaysian courts apply local law when the vehicle and driver are from Singapore.
Example 2: Malaysian-Registered Car in Thailand
If a Malaysian-registered vehicle is involved in an accident in Thailand, Thai law governs the incident, as it falls within Thailand’s territorial jurisdiction. For example, on 13 August 2019, 30-year-old Malaysian tourist Miss MS, was charged with reckless driving causing death and injuries after her car allegedly lost control and struck six highway workers in Songkhla, Thailand. The case was heard in Thailand’s Songkhla Provincial Court.
This principle provides predictability for victims, as they know that the law of the accident location will determine liability, negligence, and damages. However, it also creates practical challenges, particularly when litigation involves parties, witnesses, insurers, or assets located across borders. Cross-border accidents may therefore require careful consideration of both the applicable law and the forum in which a case is brought, highlighting the complexities inherent in transnational road accident disputes. These challenges raise important questions about how foreign courts determine which law applies, and under what circumstances doctrines such as double actionability or forum conveniens may influence the outcome, topics discussed in the next section.
Beyond Lex Loci Delicti: Choice of Law, Forum Conveniens, and Double Actionability
While lex loci delicti provides the starting point for determining the applicable law in cross-border road accidents, it is not always the final word. Courts hearing such cases may also consider doctrines such as forum conveniens and double actionability, which influence both the choice of law and the appropriateness of the forum.
Forum Conveniens
A forum conveniens is a court or jurisdiction sufficiently suitable for resolving a dispute, though it need not be the single most convenient forum. The key requirement is that the forum must be accessible to the relevant parties and witnesses, and its use should not create serious obstacles or inefficiencies in resolving the dispute. The doctrine allows a court to decline to hear a case if another forum is clearly more appropriate, and it is treated as a practical, discretionary test rather than a rigid rule.
When determining forum conveniens, courts consider factors such as:
- the location where the accident occurred;
- the location of witnesses and evidence;
- the applicable law; and
- overall convenience and cost of proceedings.
Even if a plaintiff chooses to sue in their home jurisdiction, a defendant may request a stay of proceedings on the grounds that another country’s courts would be more suitable.
Case Example: In Goh Suan Hee v Teo Cher Teck [2009] SGCA 52, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered a cross-border traffic accident that occurred in Malaysia. Although the starting point for a tortious claim is generally that the jurisdiction where the tort occurred (lex loci delicti) is the most suitable forum, this principle is not absolute. In this case, four out of five witnesses were based in Singapore, making it inconvenient for them to testify in Malaysia. The court also observed that Malaysian negligence law on traffic accidents is largely similar to Singapore law. Considering these factors, the court held that Malaysia was not clearly the more appropriate forum and allowed the action to proceed in Singapore.
This example shows how forum conveniens operates as a practical balancing tool, ensuring that cases are heard in a forum that is reasonably convenient and just, without being rigidly bound to the accident location.
Once the forum has been determined, courts must then consider whether the tort is actionable under both the law of the forum and the law of the place where the tort occurred. This leads to the doctrine of double actionability, which governs the substantive recognition of foreign torts in domestic courts.
Double Actionability
Double actionability is a doctrine of private international law that holds that a tort committed in a foreign jurisdiction can be actionable in a domestic court only if it satisfies two conditions:
- actionable under the laws of the forum – the act must constitute a tort according to the laws of the country where the domestic court sits, as if the tort had occurred there; and
- actionable under the laws of the foreign country – the same act must also constitute a tort under the law of the country where it actually occurred.
In simpler terms, the doctrine ensures that a plaintiff cannot succeed in a domestic court for an act that is not considered wrongful either under local law or the law of the place where the act occurred. It provides a balance between respecting local legal principles and acknowledging the law of the country where the tort took place.
This principle was demonstrated in Chan Kwon Fong & Anor v Chan Wah [1977] 1 MLJ 232, where the Malaysian court emphasised that an act committed abroad would be actionable in Malaysia only if it satisfied both limbs of the double actionability test. Importantly, the court held that the plaintiff bears the obligation to establish the second limb, that the act is actionable under the foreign law, to maintain an action in Malaysia for a tort occurring outside the country. This ensures that foreign torts cannot be litigated in domestic courts unless they are recognised as wrongful under both jurisdictions.
The double actionability test is also recognised in Singapore. This was illustrated in Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull [2007]1 SLR 377, where the Singapore Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principle that a tort committed abroad can be actionable in Singapore if it is actionable both under Singapore law and the law of the foreign jurisdiction where the tort occurred. The court held that while the double actionability rule remains the general starting point, it is not flexible; Singapore courts may displace it if another law has a closer and more real connection to the dispute.
Although the case itself involved a commercial tort rather than a road accident, it is relevant because it demonstrates Singapore courts’ approach to foreign torts and the application of the double actionability doctrine. It shows that Singapore will generally require both the forum law and foreign law to recognise the tort, ensuring consistency and fairness, but retains the flexibility to apply the law most closely connected to the parties.
While some ASEAN countries, such as Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam, have not adopted the double actionability, these jurisdictions rely heavily on the principle of lex loci delicti. In other words, the law of the country where the tort occurred governs the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties involved.
- In Thailand, courts do not apply the double actionability rule and primarily consider the local law where the accident occurred.
- In Cambodia, the legal framework for private international law is still developing. Courts generally apply the law of the place of the tort, evaluating each case based on its specific circumstances.
- In Vietnam, private international law similarly does not recognise double actionability. Vietnamese courts generally apply lex loci delicti and focus on the legal principles to determine negligence, liability, and damages.
The reliance on lex loci delicti provides predictability but also highlights the lack of harmonisation across ASEAN jurisdictions. The practical effect is that cross-border tort claims can produce inconsistent outcomes, depending on which country’s courts hear the case.
Debating the Application of REJA to Cross-Border Accident Claims
REJA is a Malaysian statute that facilitates the direct enforcement of civil monetary judgments from designated foreign jurisdictions, known as reciprocating countries. This mechanism reflects Malaysia’s commitment to international comity and efficient cross-border dispute resolution.
Key Features of REJA 1958
Direct Enforcement
Once a foreign judgment is registered under REJA 1958, it is treated in Malaysia as though it were a judgment delivered by a Malaysian court. This legal effect does not mean the judgment originated in Malaysia, but rather that it carries the same force and may be enforced using the same procedures as a local judgment. The advantage is that the successful party does not need to commence a fresh lawsuit in Malaysia, thereby simplifying enforcement across borders.
Monetary Judgments Only
REJA 1958 applies exclusively to final and conclusive monetary judgments from superior courts of reciprocating countries. It does not extend to non-monetary judgments, such as injunctions or declarations.
Reciprocating Countries
The Act applies to judgments from superior courts of countries listed in the First Schedule, including:
- Singapore
- United Kingdom
- Hong Kong
- New Zealand
- India (limited states)
- Sri Lanka
- Brunei
Procedure
The judgment creditor must apply to the High Court to register the foreign judgment. This application must be filed within six years of the date of the foreign judgment or the date of the last judgment in the appeal process. The application is typically made ex parte and supported by an affidavit, along with a duly verified or certified copy of the foreign judgment and a certified translation if the judgment is not in English.
Whilst REJA has ordinarily being heard and decided for commercial disputes, the applicability of REJA on personal liability has yet to be tested. There is an argument for its application to personal injury claims arising from cross-border road accidents. In such cases, the relief sought, including compensation for bodily injury, loss of income, or property damage, is ultimately monetary in nature, which aligns with REJA’s requirement that the judgment involves a sum of money payable. This issue is particularly pivotal in cross-border scenarios involving parties from reciprocating countries, where enforcing a foreign monetary judgment without REJA would be procedurally complex and time-consuming. This practical significance can be illustrated by a recent case handled by our firm, which demonstrates how REJA might be applied in the context of a cross-border personal injury claim.
Case Example: Originating Summons No: WA-24-21-04/2022
This is a personal injury case handled by Richard Wee Chambers, where the Singapore High Court Judgment was registered in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur via REJA 1958. The case involved a bus accident at Muar, Johor, and the application was made ex parte. Following the registration, attempts were later made to set aside the registration on public grounds, but these were never heard as the matter eventually settled.
If the case had proceeded, it would have provided an important judicial consideration of the court’s discretion in extending REJA 1958 to personal injury claims arising from cross-border accidents. This is particularly noteworthy because REJA 1958 is generally confined to civil judgments ‘where a sum of money is made payable’. In principle, there is no express restriction in REJA limiting its scope to commercial matters, so long as the foreign judgment is monetary in nature. This means that personal injury claims arising from cross-border accidents, though tort-based, may still fall within REJA, as they involve compensation for loss or damage. In this way, REJA demonstrates a degree of practical flexibility, potentially allowing victims to claim foreign monetary awards without the need to re-litigate the case in Malaysia.
Proposed Reforms for Cross-Border Accident Claims in ASEAN
While lex loci delicti provides a baseline, doctrines such as double actionability and forum conveniens often produce complicated outcomes, leaving victims uncertain about where and how to pursue claims. The legal uncertainty, combined with limitations of reciprocal enforcement, emphasises the urgent need to reform the current legal framework within ASEAN.
Therefore, two key reforms should be considered:
Enhanced Judicial Cooperation and a Regional Reciprocal Enforcement Framework
ASEAN countries should explore the establishment of a convention or treaty on cross-border tort liability, creating a regional reciprocal judgment framework for civil and tort claims. This mechanism could harmonise the rules governing jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition or enforcement of judgments across ASEAN member states. By standardising procedures and clarifying which judgments are enforceable, victims would gain predictability and efficiency in pursuing cross-border claims. Moreover, judicial cooperation could include mechanisms for sharing evidence, witness testimony, and expert reports, reducing the practical barriers that currently force parties to litigate in multiple jurisdictions. This reform aligns with ASEAN’s broader goals of economic integration and legal cooperation while addressing the gaps left by other ASEAN member states that lack reciprocal judgment frameworks.
Harmonised Motor Insurance and Compensation Schemes
A second reform is the creation of harmonised motor insurance requirements and cross-border compensation schemes for ASEAN road users. Currently, insurance coverage and claim processes vary widely across jurisdictions, creating difficulties for victims when accidents involve foreign-registered vehicles. By establishing minimum insurance standards, mutual recognition of policies, and a regional claims settlement mechanism, ASEAN countries can ensure that victims receive timely compensation, regardless of the vehicle’s registration or the location of the accident. Such a system could be modelled on frameworks in the EU or other integrated regions, balancing the protection of victims with administrative efficiency for insurers. This reform also supports the first by ensuring that once judgments are recognised across borders, the funds to satisfy them are readily available, reducing enforcement conflict.
Taken together, these reforms would address both procedural and substantive barriers in cross-border accident claims, providing ASEAN victims with clearer pathways to compensation and reducing the current reliance on fragmented national laws and discretionary enforcement mechanisms.
Conclusion
Cross-border road accidents in ASEAN present complex legal challenges, from determining the applicable law to navigating fragmented enforcement mechanisms. As the article has demonstrated, the lex loci delicti principle provides a predictable starting point, ensuring that the law of the accident location governs substantive rights and liabilities. However, doctrines such as forum conveniens and double actionability introduce additional layers of complexity, particularly in multi-jurisdictional disputes involving foreign-registered vehicles. Case examples from Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand illustrate both the utility and limitations of these principles, highlighting how practical considerations, such as witness locations, evidence accessibility, and similarities in substantive law, can influence the forum and outcome of cross-border claims.
Enforcement of judgments remains a significant barrier in cross-border road accident claims. Not all ASEAN countries have reciprocal judgment frameworks, resulting in a heavier burden on victims to seek compensation across borders. To address these challenges, two reforms are proposed: enhanced judicial cooperation through a regional reciprocal enforcement framework and harmonised motor insurance and compensation schemes. Together, they would reduce procedural uncertainty, provide more predictable outcomes, and ensure effective cross-border compensation for victims. Looking ahead, harmonising laws and enforcement across ASEAN would strengthen victim protection and support regional integration, ensuring justice for accident victims while providing clarity for road users and insurers.
Published on 3 October 2025