An Australian casino operator’s bid to reclaim gambling money from a high roller hit a brick wall in a Singaporean court, the Strait Times reports.
The Star Entertainment QLD, a subsidiary of Australian casino operator The Star Entertainment Group, sued Dr. Wong Yew Choy in the Singapore International Commercial Court, seeking a court order to have A$43.2 million Dr. Wong had amassed in gambling debt recovered.
The Star brought the matter to court last March. In a ruling issued earlier this week, International Commercial Court Judge Jeremy Cooke struck down the casino operator’s claim on public policy grounds.
The judge said that his decision was a “necessary concomitant of a public policy which is protective of Singapore’s interests.”
What prompted the legal challenge?
The Star flew Dr. Wong to its Gold Coast casino in late July 2018. Upon his arrival, the Singaporean high roller requested a cheque cashing facility for A$40 million and raised it to A$50 million a few days later. He provided a blank cheque.
After accumulating huge losses playing baccarat at The Star Gold Coast, Dr. Wong informed the casino that he would not play any more and blamed his losses on mistakes made by the dealer. The player said in court that the gambling venue persuaded him to continue to play and that The Star acknowledged the dealers’ mistakes.
After playing at the casino for nearly two months, Dr. Wong had accumulated losses of A$43.2 million. The Star wrote that amount in the blank cheque. Back in Singapore, Dr. Wong told his bank to stop the payment, arguing that he did not owe anything to the casino since it had failed to prevent the occurrence of mistakes.
The recent ruling
Judge Cooke said this week that his decision to strike down The Star’s claim underlined a point that Singapore law does not enforce the recovery of money won from a wager other than gambling regulated by the city-state’s Casino Control Act.
The judge cited a Singapore Court of Appeal ruling from 2002 that found that the claim violated Section 5(2) of Singapore’s Civil Law Act. That particular section prohibits the recovery of gambling debts subject to certain exceptions. It also has no application to a valid international gambling debt.
According to Judge Cooke, public policy underlies the above-mentioned Act. In his ruling, the judge explained that “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.”
The Star’s lawyer, Alfred Lim of Fullerton Law Chambers, argued that Section 5(2) should not be applied as Dr. Wong did not claim the cheque cashing facility agreement he had signed was invalid under Queensland law.
Mr. Lim went on to say that public policy that underlies Section 5(2) could not be applied to a valid international debt and that Dr. Wong was not a vulnerable individual who required protection, but an experienced high roller at casinos around the world who has demonstrated considerable wealth.
On the other hand, Dr. Wang’s lawyer Abraham Vergis of Providence Law Asia argued that what The Star tried to do was to recover money won on gambling but disguised its claim as one seeking recovery of unpaid loan/credit facility.
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up to date on the day’s top casino news stories
