Star City v Tan: Gaming Contract & Illegality under Civil Law Act
Star City Pty Ltd, operating a casino in Sydney, sued Tan Hong Woon in the Singapore High Court to recover unpaid loans totaling AUD 194,840, which Tan used to gamble at their casino. Tan argued that section 5 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43) prohibited Star City from recovering gambling debts. The court, presided over by Justice Tan Lee Meng, dismissed Star City's claim, characterizing it as an attempt to recover money won upon a wager, which is prohibited under Singapore law, regardless of where the gambling occurred.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Star City's claim to recover gambling losses from Tan, holding it was a prohibited gaming contract under Singapore's Civil Law Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Hong Woon | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Star City Pty Ltd (formerly known as Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Ltd) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Kay Khai | Michael Khoo & Partners |
| Foo Maw Shen | Ang & Partners |
| Keoy Soo Khim | Ang & Partners |
4. Facts
- Star City operates a licensed casino in Sydney.
- Tan Hong Woon was a regular patron of Star City's casino.
- Star City granted Tan a Cheque Cashing Facility (CCF).
- Tan signed five house cheques for AUD 50,000 each in exchange for chip purchase vouchers.
- Tan gambled and lost AUD 250,000.
- The house cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds.
- Tan paid Star City AUD 55,160 but refused to pay the balance of AUD 194,840.
5. Formal Citations
- Star City Pty Ltd (formerly known as Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Ltd) v Tan Hong Woon, Suit 837/2000, [2001] SGHC 100
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Cheque Cashing Facility granted to Mr. Tan | |
| Mr. Tan visited SC's casino on at least 28 occasions between February 1996 and March 1998 | |
| SC provided Mr Tan and his wife with two complimentary air tickets to Sydney and a complimentary suite at their hotel | |
| Mr Tan utilised the CCF at SCs casino | |
| Mr Tan utilised the CCF at SCs casino | |
| Mr Tan signed and handed over to SC five house cheques, each for the sum of AUD 50,000, in exchange for chip purchase vouchers | |
| Suit filed (Suit 837/2000) | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Illegality of Gaming Contract
- Outcome: The court held that the claim was essentially for money won at a gambling table and was therefore unenforceable under section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Enforceability of gaming debts
- Application of Civil Law Act to gaming contracts
- Recovery of Loan
- Outcome: The court held that the transaction was not a genuine loan but an integral part of the gaming transaction, and therefore the claim was for money won upon a wager.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Characterization of transaction as loan or wager
- Exchange of cheques for gambling chips
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Recovery of Loan
- Claim on Dishonoured Cheques
- Money Had and Received
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Gambling
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hill v William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1949] AC 530 | England | Cited to explain the effect of the English provision corresponding to section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act, which bars actions to recover money won upon a wager. |
| Las Vegas Hilton Corporation t/a Las Vegas Hilton v Khoo Teng Hock Sunny | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited by the plaintiff to support the argument that loans made abroad for betting are recoverable; distinguished by the court because the defendant denied taking a loan. |
| DAlmeida v DMenzie | Unspecified | Yes | (1886) 5 Kyshe 126 | Singapore | Cited by the plaintiff to support the argument that loans made abroad for betting are recoverable; distinguished by the court because the defendant denied taking a loan. |
| Cumming v Mackie | Court of Session | Yes | (1973) SLT 242 | Scotland | Cited for the sensible approach on the effect of an exchange of a cheque for chips, where the court stated that there is no question of the club making a loan or advance to the member. |
| Crockfords Club Ltd v Mehta | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 WLR 355 | England | Cited to show the English position on whether or not there is an underlying loan when a cheque is exchanged for gambling chips is different. |
| CHT Ltd v Ward | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1965] 2 QB 63 | England | Cited to show the English position on whether or not there is an underlying loan when a cheque is exchanged for gambling chips is different. |
| Star Cruise Services Ltd v Overseas Union Bank Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 412 | Singapore | Cited for the detailed discussion of the history of the English Gaming Acts. |
| Woolf v Freeman | Unspecified | Yes | [1937] 1 All ER 178 | England | Cited as a case where the English courts rejected claims on gaming contracts which were disguised as claims for the recovery of loans. |
| Law v Dearnley | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1950] 1 KB 400 | England | Cited as a case where the court emphasized that it is the reality of the transaction which must be looked at and not the way in which it was presented to the court. |
| MacDonald v Green | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1951] 1 KB 594 | England | Cited as a case where the English Court of Appeal expressed its disapproval of an attempt to disguise a gambling transaction as a loan made to a gambler after he had already incurred losses at the gambling table. |
| Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1991] 2 AC 548 | England | Cited for the view that there was only one contract, namely a gaming contract. |
| Gilbert v Sykes | Unspecified | Yes | (1812) 16 East 150 | England | Cited to show the feeling of judges that it would be a good rule to postpone the trial of every action upon idle wagers till the Court had nothing else to do. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43) s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43) s 5(1) | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43) s 5(6) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Chapter 1) s 9A | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cheque Cashing Facility
- Gaming Contract
- House Cheques
- Chip Purchase Vouchers
- Civil Law Act
- Lex Fori
- Wager
15.2 Keywords
- gaming contract
- illegality
- Civil Law Act
- gambling debt
- casino
- loan
- wager
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Gaming contract | 90 |
| Illegality and public policy | 80 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Cheques | 60 |
| Banking Law | 30 |
| Commercial Law | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Gaming Law
- Civil Procedure