Star City v Tan Hong Woon: Enforceability of Gambling Debts under Singapore Civil Law Act
Star City Pty Ltd (formerly known as Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Limited) appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the decision to disallow their claim against Tan Hong Woon for unpaid loans used for gambling at Star City Casino in Sydney. The High Court, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Lai Kew Chai J, and Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the appeal, holding that the claim was essentially an attempt to recover money won upon a wager, which is unenforceable under Section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act, regardless of the contract's validity under New South Wales law. The court emphasized that Singapore's public policy prevents its courts from being used to enforce gambling debts, even if disguised as loans.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court refuses to enforce Star City's claim for gambling debts, holding it's an irrecoverable wager under the Civil Law Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Hong Woon | Respondent | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Won | |
| Star City Pty Limited (formerly known as Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Limited) | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Lai Kew Chai | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Star City operates a licensed casino in Sydney, Australia.
- Tan Hong Woon was a regular patron of Star City Casino.
- Star City granted Tan Hong Woon a Cheque Cashing Facility (CCF).
- Tan Hong Woon signed five house cheques for AU $50,000 each.
- Tan Hong Woon received chip purchase vouchers (CPVs) in exchange for the cheques.
- Tan Hong Woon lost the entire sum of AU $250,000 gambling.
- The five house cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds.
- Tan Hong Woon made good AU $55,160, leaving AU $194,840 unpaid.
5. Formal Citations
- Star City Pty Limited (formerly known as Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Limited) v Tan Hong Woon, CA 600093/2001, Suit 837/2000/D, [2002] SGHC 36
- Star City Pty Limited, , [2001] 3 SLR 206
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Casino Control Act 1992 of New South Wales, Australia enacted | |
| Tan Hong Woon granted use of Star City Casino's Cheque Cashing Facility | |
| Tan Hong Woon began visiting and gambling at Star City Casino | |
| Star City provided Tan Hong Woon and his wife with complimentary air-tickets to Sydney | |
| Star City provided Tan Hong Woon and his wife with a complimentary suite at their hotel | |
| Tan Hong Woon signed and handed over to Star City five house cheques | |
| Tan Hong Woon signed and handed over to Star City five house cheques | |
| Suit 837/2000/D filed | |
| Case Number CA 600093/2001 filed | |
| High Court decision reported at [2001] 3 SLR 206 | |
| High Court decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforceability of Gambling Debts
- Outcome: The court held that the claim was essentially an action to recover money lost upon a wager, falling under Section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act and therefore unenforceable in Singapore.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Characterization of transaction as loan or wager
- Application of lex fori
- Public policy considerations
- Application of Section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act
- Outcome: The court held that Section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act is procedural and applies as part of the lex fori to make unenforceable in Singapore all actions to recover ‘money won upon a wager’.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether Section 5(2) is substantive or procedural
- Scope of Section 5(2)
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Recovery of Debt
- Breach of Contract
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) | House of Lords | Yes | [1949] AC 530 | United Kingdom | Overruled the prior position in Hymans v Stuart King and established that s 5(2) strikes down as unenforceable all contracts to pay the sum won upon a wager. |
| Bubb v Yelverton | N/A | Yes | L.R. 9 Eq 471 | N/A | Case where the court drew a distinction between the gaming contract itself and other collateral contracts arising therefrom. |
| In re Browne Ex parte Martingell | N/A | Yes | [1904] 2 KB 133 | United Kingdom | Case where the court drew a distinction between the gaming contract itself and other collateral contracts arising therefrom. |
| Chapman v Franklin | N/A | Yes | 21 Times LR 515 | N/A | Case where the court drew a distinction between the gaming contract itself and other collateral contracts arising therefrom. |
| Hymans v Stuart King | N/A | Yes | [1908] 2 KB 696 | United Kingdom | Case where the court drew a distinction between the gaming contract itself and other collateral contracts arising therefrom. |
| Monterosso Shipping Co. Ltd v International Transport Workers’ Federation | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1982] 3 All ER 841 | United Kingdom | Case cited for the distinction between substantive and procedural law. |
| Re Shoesmith | N/A | Yes | [1938] 2 KB 637 | United Kingdom | Case cited for the definition of procedural law. |
| Poysers v Minors | N/A | Yes | (1881) 7 QBD 329 | United Kingdom | Case cited for the definition of procedural law. |
| Quarrier v Colston | N/A | Yes | 1 Ph 147 | N/A | Case cited for the proposition that an action on the loan itself will succeed if the loan is valid by its governing law. |
| Saxby v Fulton | N/A | Yes | [1909] 2 KB 208 | United Kingdom | Case cited for the proposition that an action on the loan itself will succeed if the loan is valid by its governing law. |
| Societe Anonyme des Grands Establissments de Touquet Paris – Plage v Baumgart | N/A | Yes | [1927] TLR 789 | N/A | Case cited for the proposition that an action on the loan itself will succeed if the loan is valid by its governing law. |
| G & H Montage G.m.b.H. v Irvani | N/A | Yes | [1990] 1 WLR 667 | N/A | Case cited for the application of lex fori to procedural requirements. |
| G & H Montage G.m.b.H. v Irvani | N/A | Yes | [1988] 1 WLR 1285 | N/A | Case cited for the application of lex fori to procedural requirements. |
| Las Vegas Hilton Corporation v Khoo Teng Hock Sunny | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 341 | Singapore | Distinguished on the basis that the court was only concerned with the issue of enforceability of the loan and it was not disputed by both parties that a loan had been advanced by the casino to the gambler. |
| Loh Chee Song v Liew Yong Chian | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 641 | Singapore | Case cited for the principle that a loan and a wagering contract are distinct transactions. |
| Star Cruises v Overseas Union Bank | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 412 | Singapore | Case cited for the principle that the court should look at the final effect of the transaction and held it abundantly clear that the cheque or cashiers’ order represented the losses or winnings of the gambler. |
| Sun Cruises v Overseas Union Bank | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 404 | Singapore | Case cited for the principle that the court should look at the final effect of the transaction and held it abundantly clear that the cheque or cashiers’ order represented the losses or winnings of the gambler. |
| Quek Chiau Beng v Phua Swee Pah Jimmy | N/A | Yes | DC 500072 of 1999, RA No 600053 of 2000 | Singapore | Case cited for the principle that the court should look at the final effect of the transaction and held it abundantly clear that the cheque or cashiers’ order represented the losses or winnings of the gambler. |
| Cummings v Mackie | N/A | Yes | (1973) SLT 242 | N/A | Case relied upon to ascertain the nature of the transaction in issue. |
| Crockfords Club v Mehta | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 WLR 355 | N/A | Case relied upon to ascertain the nature of the transaction in issue. |
| CHT Ltd. v Ward | N/A | Yes | [1963] 2 QB 63 | N/A | Case relied upon to ascertain the nature of the transaction in issue. |
| Law v Dearnley | N/A | Yes | [1950] 1 KB 400 | N/A | Case relied upon to ascertain the nature of the transaction in issue. |
| Woolf v Freeman | N/A | Yes | [1937] 1 All ER 178 | N/A | Case relied upon to ascertain the nature of the transaction in issue. |
| MacDonald v Green | N/A | Yes | [1951] 1 KB 594 | N/A | Case relied upon to ascertain the nature of the transaction in issue. |
| Hope v Hope | N/A | Yes | 8 DM & G 731 | N/A | Case cited for the principle that the courts of one country are called upon to enforce contracts entered into in another country. |
| Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1991] 2 AC 548 | N/A | Case cited for the principle that a broad view of things must be taken, and this points towards the cheques being used to pay for the gaming chips and any money to be recovered by the casinos as money won/lost upon a wager rather than a true loan. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 143), Section 5 | Singapore |
| Gaming Act 1845 (UK), Section 18 | United Kingdom |
| English Gaming Act of 1892, Section 1 | United Kingdom |
| Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (UK), Section 72 | United Kingdom |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1), Section 9 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cheque Cashing Facility
- Chip Purchase Voucher
- House Cheques
- Gaming Contract
- Lex Fori
- Public Policy
- Re-characterisation
- Money Won Upon a Wager
15.2 Keywords
- Gambling Debt
- Civil Law Act
- Singapore
- Casino
- Enforcement
- Conflict of Laws
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Casinos and Gambling | 90 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Conflict of Laws | 40 |
| Banking Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Gaming
- Private International Law
- Civil Procedure