A casino high roller, who was spared by a Singapore court from paying a A$43 million (S$44 million) Australian baccarat debt based on Singapore law, will have to explain why he does not have to do so before an Australian court.

A Brisbane judge has rejected Dr Wong Yew Choy's bid to set aside the Australian lawsuit by Brisbane-based The Star Entertainment QLD seeking to recover the debt he incurred for gambling losses at The Star Gold Coast Casino in 2018.

"I am not persuaded that allowing the proceeding to continue will result in Dr Wong incurring a serious and unfair burden, prejudice or damage or cause him any serious and unjustified trouble or harassment in defending himself," said Justice Thomas Bradley in the Queensland Supreme Court.

"I am not satisfied that allowing the present proceeding to continue, after the Singapore proceedings have been concluded, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute," added the judge in decision grounds last month.

The Star Entertainment had first sued Dr Wong, a Singaporean, in the High Court here in February 2019 for purported losses at the casino in Queensland between July 26 and Aug 2, 2018.

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 agreement inked with him.

In the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) decision grounds issued last year, International Judge Jeremy Cooke had held Star's claim fell foul of Section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act, citing a previous Court of Appeal decision.

The section prohibits the recovery of gaming debts, subject to certain exceptions.

Dr Wong allegedly incurred a net debt to Star of about A$43.2 million over seven days at the casino.

He applied to set aside Star's lawsuit, arguing the claim has insufficient prospects of success and any defence he may have to Star's claim is immaterial to the outcome of this application, among other things.

Expert opinions on Singapore law were tendered to the Brisbane court by Singapore Senior Counsel Gregory Vijayendran and Thio Shen Yi.

Justice Bradley noted the Singapore decision made clear the case was dismissed only because Section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act barred Star's claim in any Singapore court.

"The SICC did not finally resolve the conflict about the existence or extent of the causes of action asserted by Star against Dr Wong. SICC did not determine whether Star had the legal rights claimed or whether Star had proved the facts it alleged to establish its claims," said Justice Bradley.

The judge found Dr Wong failed to show Star's claim had insufficient prospects of success in Brisbane "to warrant putting him to the time, expense and trouble of defending".

Dr Wong will have to plead a defence to the substance of Star's claim for a second time in Australia as none of the issues Star raised were settled in the Singapore proceedings, said the judge.

He added: "Star's prospects are not fanciful. On the contrary, Star appears to have a good arguable case with an obvious and substantial connection to this jurisdiction.

"Considering the circumstances of the proceeding, I am not satisfied Dr Wong is at risk of injustice, if the proceeding continues. If it were dismissed or stayed, Star would be prevented from having its claim against Dr Wong determined on its merits. That would be an injustice," said the judge.