Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees Ltd: Enforcement of Foreign Judgment on Dishonoured Cheque for Gambling Debt

In Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Liao Eng Kiat's appeal against the registration of an Australian judgment in favour of Burswood Nominees Ltd, a casino, for a dishonoured cheque. The court, with Yong Pung How CJ delivering the judgment, found that while Singapore's Civil Law Act typically prevents the enforcement of gambling debts, the higher threshold of public policy under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act allowed the registration of the Australian judgment. The court considered evolving societal attitudes towards gambling in Singapore and the reciprocal nature of judgment enforcement with Australia.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal enforced an Australian judgment against Liao Eng Kiat for a dishonoured cheque issued to Burswood casino, despite Singapore's stance on gambling debts.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Liao Eng KiatAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Jeanny Ng of Jeanny Ng
Burswood Nominees LtdRespondentCorporationRegistration of Australian judgment upheldWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeNo
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Liao issued a cheque for SGD 52,900 to Burswood casino in exchange for a voucher of A$50,000.
  2. Liao exchanged the voucher for gambling chips and lost the entire amount at the casino.
  3. Liao's personal cheque was dishonoured upon presentation.
  4. Burswood sued Liao in the District Court of Western Australia and obtained a default judgment.
  5. Burswood sought to register the Australian judgment in Singapore under the RECJA.
  6. Liao applied to set aside the registration, arguing it was against public policy due to the gambling debt.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees Ltd, CA 6/2004, [2004] SGCA 45

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Liao flew to Perth and checked into Burswood’s hotel.
Liao issued a cheque for SGD 52,900 and was given a voucher of A$50,000 in return.
Burswood obtained a default judgment against Liao for A$78,331.50 with costs of A$2,765.28.
Burswood successfully applied for registration of the Australian judgment in the Singapore High Court.
Appeal dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
    • Outcome: The court ruled that the Australian judgment was enforceable in Singapore.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Public Policy Exception to Enforcement
    • Outcome: The court held that the domestic public policy against enforcing gambling debts did not outweigh the principles of comity and reciprocity in enforcing foreign judgments.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Characterization of Transaction
    • Outcome: The court determined that the transaction was for money won upon a wager, but this characterization did not preclude enforcement of the foreign judgment.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Enforcement of foreign judgment
  2. Monetary damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Claim on dishonoured cheque
  • Breach of contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Casino Law

11. Industries

  • Gambling
  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Star City Pty Ltd v Tan Hong WoonHigh CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR 22SingaporeCited as a case of particular importance in the course of deliberations. The facts of the present case differed from those of Star City in one essential aspect.
Star City Pty Ltd v Tan Hong WoonHigh CourtYes[2001] 3 SLR 206SingaporeCited for the High Court decision where the casino’s claim was dismissed.
Soleimany v SoleimanyEnglish Court of AppealYes[1999] QB 785EnglandCited to emphasize that a high standard of public policy must be met before courts will refuse to enforce a foreign judgment.
Fender v St John-MildmayHouse of LordsYes[1938] AC 1EnglandCited for the doctrine of public policy, which should only be invoked in clear cases in which the harm to the public is substantially incontestable.
Vervaeke v SmithHouse of LordsYes[1983] 1 AC 145EnglandCited for the principle that the court will be even slower to invoke public policy in the field of conflict of laws than when a purely municipal legal issue is involved.
Fauntleroy v LumUS Supreme CourtYes210 US 230 (1908)United StatesCited to show that US courts are required to honor gambling judgments rendered by sister states.
Loucks v Standard Oil Co of New YorkCourt of Appeals of New YorkYes224 NY 99 (1918)United StatesCited for the principle that courts are not free to refuse to enforce a foreign right at the pleasure of the judges.
Aspinall’s Club Limited v Eskander AryehAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New YorkYes86 AD 2d 428 (1982)United StatesCited as an illustration of the American courts' approach to enforcing judgments emanating from other countries.
Boardwalk Regency Corp v MaaloufOntario Court of AppealYes(1992) 88 DLR (4th) 612CanadaCited to show the Canadian courts' reluctance to refuse recognition of foreign judgments.
Re An Arbitration between Hainan Machinery Import and Export Corporation and Donald & McArthy Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR 34SingaporeCited for the principle of comity of nations requires that the awards of foreign arbitration tribunals be given due deference and be enforced unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co, Inc v Societe Generale de l’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA)US Court of AppealYes508 F 2d 969 (1974)United StatesCited for the public policy limitation in the New York Convention is to be construed narrowly and applied only where enforcement would violate the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice.
Hebei Import & Export Corp v Polytek Engineering Co Ltd (No 2)Hong Kong Court of AppealYes[1998] 1 HKC 192Hong KongCited for the test of whether in all the circumstances of the case, it would violate the most basic notions of morality and justice of the Hong Kong system if the foreign award in question is to be enforced.
Renusagar Power Co Ltd v General Electric CoSupreme Court of IndiaYesAIR 1994 SC 860IndiaCited for the distinction drawn while applying the rule of public policy between a matter governed by domestic law and a matter involving conflict of laws.
The Aspinall Curzon Ltd v Khoo Teng HockHigh Court of Kuala LumpurYes[1991] 2 MLJ 484MalaysiaCited as a Malaysian case where the court recognized an English judgment for a gambling debt, noting that public policy was an 'unruly horse'.
Intercontinental Hotels Corporation (Puerto Rico) v GoldenCourt of Appeals of New YorkYes15 NY 2d 9 (1964)United StatesCited for the principle that public policy is not determinable by mere reference to the laws of the forum alone.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court Act 1935Western Australia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act
  • Civil Law Act
  • Public policy
  • Dishonoured cheque
  • Gambling debt
  • Cheque cashing facility
  • Foreign judgment
  • Comity
  • Reciprocity

15.2 Keywords

  • Foreign Judgment Enforcement
  • Gambling Debt
  • Singapore
  • Australia
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Public Policy

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Conflict of Laws
  • Gaming Law
  • Civil Procedure