In a landmark ruling that may have an impact on whether Singapore's future casinos can recover debts from foreigners, a judge here has enforced an order from an American court that he pay up.

The businessman, Mr Poh Soon Kiat, in his 50s, lost the money at the Caesars Palace casino over a six-year period beginning in 1992.

In 1999, the operators sued him and succeeded in getting a small amount from the sale of a property he owned in California.

Mr Poh, who is listed as the director of five firms and owner of three, apparently then returned to Singapore.

The casino then brought the case to a US court, which ordered him to pay up in 1999.

It subsequently applied to the Singapore courts, via lawyers from the firm of Rodyk & Davidson, to enforce the American judgment.

But Mr Poh's lawyers from Wong Partnership argued that gambling debts were not recognised here under the law.

However, on Tuesday, the High Court disagreed and held that the casino operators were entitled to get their money back.

Lawyers say the ruling puts gamblers here on notice that they can be sued for gambling debts anywhere in the world if a judgment order is obtained from a recognised court in a foreign country and the order is found to be 'valid, final and conclusive'.

In his ruling, Justice Chan Seng Onn made clear that the courts here are prepared to look at foreign judgment orders, and, provided there is no fraud in securing the judgment or other reasons for challenging it, will enforce the claim.

The roots of the ruling go back to 1999, when Singapore ruled that gambling debts cannot be recovered here because the courts here do not recognise gambling contracts.

However, in 2004, things changed when the Court of Appeal ruled that because of an agreement between Commonwealth countries - known as Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgements Act - such debts should be recoverable here, but only if they were incurred in Commonwealth countries.

In addition, casino operators had to get a ruling from a court in the country concerned to recover what they were owed.

In his ruling, however, Justice Chan said he did not think it made 'much sense' if a Singapore gambler had to pay up a debt incurred at a casino in a Commonwealth country, but could walk away if he did so elsewhere.

He said he preferred to adopt a view of public policy where enforcement of foreign judgments arising from gambling debts would lead to a 'similar, consistent and sensible outcome' regardless of where the debts were incurred.

Mr Poh has filed an appeal against Justice Chan's judgment.

Singapore will soon have casinos at its two integrated resorts, and lawyers contacted said it is possible they will face similar problems getting money back from foreign gamblers who default.

While they can recover debts from those living here under the Casino Control Act, it might be harder to do so with foreigners.

But lawyer Amolat Singh said that since Singapore courts are now willing to enforce orders made elsewhere, it is possible that other countries may reciprocate.

However, he added: 'This is a grey area, and therefore has to be tested in other countries.'

vijayan@sph.com.sg