An Australian casino's bid to recover an A$43.2 million (S$42 million) gambling debt from a Singaporean high roller here has failed on public policy grounds.
The ruling against Brisbane-based The Star Entertainment QLD underlines the point that Singapore law does not enforce the recovery of monies won on a wager, other than gambling regulated by a statute like the Casino Control Act.
Singapore International Commercial Court judge Jeremy Cooke, in explaining why he struck out the claim taken against Dr Wong Yew Choy, said it was a "necessary concomitant of a public policy which is protective of Singapore's interests".
He cited a Singapore Court of Appeal decision in 2002 for his ruling, which found that the claim fell foul of Section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act. The section prohibits the recovery of gaming debts, subject to certain exceptions.
International Judge Cooke, in decision grounds issued on Tuesday, highlighted that public policy underlies the Act, among other things.
He pointed to a 2009 Court of Appeal judgment, in which the relevant elements of the public policy included the need to declare that the courts of justice were closed to gamblers and the courts would not help to settle or collect gambling debts.
Justice Cooke gave his judgment following a two-day hearing in chambers in August last year.
The Star Entertainment had sued Dr Wong, a businessman, for purported losses in baccarat games at The Star Gold Coast casino in Queensland, which he had patronised between July 26 and Aug 2, 2018.
Dr Wong, however, countered that the casino had made mistakes in the baccarat games he played in and he should not have to pay up.
The Star sought to recover A$43,209,853.22, which is the value of a dishonoured cheque he had signed that breached a cheque cashing facility (CCF) agreement inked with him.
But Dr Wong's lawyers, from Providence Law Asia led by Mr Abraham Vergis, argued that what The Star is doing is to recover money it won on a wager but disguised as a claim for an unpaid loan/credit facility.
In his rebuttal, The Star's lawyer Alfred Lim, from Fullerton Law Chambers, said Section 5(2) of the Act should not be applied as among other things, Dr Wong had not claimed the CCF agreement is invalid under Queensland's law.
Hence, a breach of the CCF agreement is a matter that should be pursued in a Singapore court, which should apply the law of contract.
Also, the public policy that underlies Section 5(2) has no application to a valid foreign debt, added Mr Lim. He argued, among other things, that Dr Wong is an experienced patron of gambling establishments with considerable wealth, who requires no protection as a vulnerable individual.
But Mr Vergis countered that the court was bound by the Court of Appeal decision in the Star City case in 2002 involving a Sydney casino. The 2002 ruling is that regardless of the location of the wagering contract or the lawfulness or enforceability of that contract, Section 5(2) of the Act prevented recovery.
Justice Cooke held that the 2002 ruling of Singapore's top court was a binding decision.
He said: "Had the legislature wanted to exclude foreign regulated casinos from the effect of Section 5(2) of the Act, it could have done so, but it chose to make specific exceptions as set out in Section 3(a) and the Casino Control Act only."
He also agreed that Dr Wong is not a vulnerable individual who needs to be protected against exploitation, but Section 5(2) of the Act has no exemption to its terms that can be applied in the current case.
"However much it might stick in the gullet and appear unconscionable for a wealthy man to avoid what has been described as a 'debt of honour'," said Justice Cooke, the court "is not able to countenance a claim brought for sums allegedly won on a wager".
