Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Beh Tze Wei (WA-24NCVC-2120-12/2017)

The Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Singapore and is in the business of inter alia operating a licensed casino whereby the Defendant is a businessman and a patron of the Plaintiff’s casino and having his last known address at No. 9, Solok Bukit Minyak, Taman Bukit Minyak Indah, Bukit Minyak, 14000 Bukit Mertajam, Pulau Pinang. [4] The Plaintiff obtained a Judgment of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore issued by the High Court Case No. HC/S 222/2017 dated 16.8.2017 against the Defendant (refer Exhibit C of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support) and as at the date of this application, the debt due and owing from the Defendant to the Plaintiff has not been satisfied. [5] The Plaintiff, subsequently filed an Originating Summons on 19.12.2017 pursuant to section 4 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (Act 99) read together with Order 67 of the Rules of Court 2012 for an order that the Judgment of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore issued by the High Court Case No. HC/S 222/2017 dated 16.8.2017 against the Defendant be registered as a Judgment of the High Court of Malaya. 4

On 29.1.2018, the Plaintiff’s application was allowed by the Court and hence, this application was filed by the Defendant to set aside the said Order. DECISION OF THE COURT [7] Having perused all the cause papers filed in this application and after considering the submissions by both the parties, the Court dismisses the Defendant’s application with costs of RM2,000.00 to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The grounds for the decision are set down below. [8] The Defendant’s application is premised on a question of whether the Credit Agreement forms a loan transaction. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff does not have a license to conduct a loan transaction with the Defendant. On this issue the Plaintiff submits that the said agreement does not constitute a loan transaction. On the contrary, the Credit Agreement enabled the Defendant to draw down credit for use within the premises of the Plaintiff in Singapore. The manner of drawdown is set out in Clause (n)(1) of the Credit Agreement (refer Exhibit TYY-2” of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Reply) where the Plaintiff’s provide chips/chip vouchers to the Defendant. 5

The Plaintiff submits that the manner of making available the credit is permissible under the laws of Singapore pursuant to the Casino Control Act (Cap 33A) and the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations

Having perused the cause papers before the Court, the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that the proper forum for the Defendant to dispute the validity of the Credit Agreement is before the High Court of the Republic of Singapore. [10] The Defendant contends that he was not served with any Summons or cause papers leading to the Singapore Judgment, but going through the facts of the case, the Court finds that there is no evidence that the Defendant has made any application to set aside the Foreign Judgment in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, and therefore the Court is of the opinion that the Foreign Judgment remains unimpeached in Singapore and this position of law is clearly explained in the case of Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd v Ng Kong Seng [2017] 7 MLJ 188 where the High Court held: “…I also agreed with the JC submission that to date the JD has not applied to set aside the Singapore judgment despite disputing the service of the Singapore cause papers and the Singapore High Court’s jurisdiction. In fact, the proper forum 6 to decide on the alleged issues of service of the Singapore cause papers and the Singapore Court’s jurisdiction is not this court but the Singapore High Court…” (Emphasis added) [11] The Plaintiff in this case is only seeking to enforce and register a valid judgment/Foreign Judgment obtained from the High Court of the Republic of Singapore and the Malaysian Courts have recognized and allowed it to be registered pursuant to Section 4 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (Act 99). [12] From the observation of the Court, it seems that the Courts in Malaysia have recognized that there is a distinction between suing on a gaming debt and the registration of a valid foreign judgment which the latter is allowed and entirely consistent with the public policy. In the case of The Aspinall Curzon Ltd v Khoo Teng Hock [1991] 2 MLJ 484 the High Court held: “…KH Chan for the plaintiff argued that even if the judgment was for a gambling debt, the gambling took place in The Aspinall Curzon which was a gambling casino licensed under the Gaming Act 1968 [UK]. In Malaysia too, the Finance 7 Minister under s 27A of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 may by licence authorize the promotion and organization of gaming by a local company… I agree with KH Chan that, had the contract been entered in this country it had been so executed with lawful consideration, and s 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 cannot apply to make it void... In the case before me, the cheques were issued in exchange for cash and gaming chips for purposes of gaming at a licensed gaming casino. It is not for an unlawful purpose by the law of England. On the facts of the case, had such transaction occurred in this country, it is a lawful transaction provided that the gaming is done in gaming premises licensed by the Finance Minister under s 27A of the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953. The enforcement of the UK judgment cannot be considered as against the public policy of this country…” [13] In the case of Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Lim Soo Kok [2017] 1 CLJ 363 the High Court held: 8 “[12] It is noted that the High Court in The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd & Anor v. Datuk Seri Osu Haji Sukam [2005] 3 CLJ 390; [2005] 6 MLJ 760 set aside the registration of a foreign judgment for a gambling debt on the ground that the registration contradicted Malaysia's public policy. However the High Court's decision in the The Ritz Hotel has been set aside by the Court of Appeal. [13] In this present case, it seems to me that the judgment creditor is availing itself to the right of reciprocity of registering a valid and lawful judgment of a foreign court as expressly provided under REJA. [14] As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the judgment creditor, the judgment creditor is not in this case filing a civil suit to enforce the gaming debt. The distinction between suing on a gaming debt and the registration of a valid foreign judgment was succinctly put in the case of Jupiters Ltd (trading as Conrad International Treasury Casino) v. Gan Kok Beng & Anor [2008] 7 CLJ 715…” (Emphasis added) 9 [14] Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s application is accordingly dismissed with costs. …………………………………. (ROHANI BINTI ISMAIL) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER CIVIL HIGH COURT (NCVC 8)