Desert Palace Inc v Poh Soon Kiat: Enforcing Foreign Judgments on Wagering Contracts
In Desert Palace Inc (doing business as Caesars Palace) v Poh Soon Kiat, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the enforcement of a foreign judgment. Desert Palace Inc sought to enforce a judgment from the Superior Court of California against Poh Soon Kiat for a gambling debt. The court, with Chan Seng Onn J presiding, allowed the appeal, granting summary judgment in favor of Desert Palace Inc, finding that the action was not time-barred and did not violate the Civil Law Act regarding wagering contracts.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court allows Desert Palace Inc to enforce a California judgment against Poh Soon Kiat, related to a gambling debt. The court addresses limitation and wagering contract issues.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Desert Palace Inc (doing business as Caesars Palace) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Foo Maw Shen, Daryl Ong, Ng Hui Min |
| Poh Soon Kiat | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Chou Sean Yu, Tan Yee Siong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Foo Maw Shen | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Daryl Ong | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Ng Hui Min | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Chou Sean Yu | WongPartnership LLP |
| Tan Yee Siong | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- Desert Palace Inc. lent US$2,000,000 to Poh Soon Kiat for gambling at Caesars Palace.
- Poh Soon Kiat signed 10 markers or cheques in exchange for gambling chips.
- Desert Palace Inc. obtained a default judgment in Nevada for US$2,000,000 on 29 March 1999.
- Desert Palace Inc. obtained a judgment in California for US$2,453,126.33 on 2 June 1999.
- Poh Soon Kiat transferred property to Surepath Development Limited, which Desert Palace Inc. sought to set aside as a fraudulent conveyance.
- The court gave judgment on 9 November 2001, setting aside the transfer and ordering the property to be sold.
- After the sale of the property, a deficiency of US$4,343,306.91 remained unpaid.
5. Formal Citations
- Desert Palace Inc (doing business as Caesars Palace) v Poh Soon Kiat, Suit 670/2007, RA 77/2008, 78/2008, [2008] SGHC 144
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant patronized Caesars Palace between 1992 and 1998 | |
| Defendant patronized Caesars Palace between 1992 and 1998 | |
| Nevada Judgment obtained | |
| Defendant executed a deed for the transfer of a one third interest in certain real property in California to Surepath | |
| First Judgment obtained in the Superior Court of the State of California | |
| Second Judgment given in default in the plaintiff’s favour | |
| Plaintiff’s claim filed | |
| Appeal allowed and summary judgment granted |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
- Outcome: The court held that the action to enforce the foreign judgment was not time-barred and did not violate public policy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Applicability of limitation periods
- Validity of foreign judgments
- Public policy considerations
- Applicability of Civil Law Act to Wagering Contracts
- Outcome: The court held that section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act did not preclude the plaintiff’s claim because the action was based on a foreign judgment, not directly on a wagering contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether the claim was based on a gaming or wagering contract
- Whether the action was brought to recover money won upon a wager
- Limitation Period for Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
- Outcome: The court held that the applicable limitation period was 6 years, but the action was not time-barred because it was based on the Second Judgment, which was issued within the 6-year period.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether the applicable limitation period was 6 years or 12 years
- Whether the action was founded on a contract or on a judgment
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
- Breach of Implied Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
11. Industries
- Gambling
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Westacre Investments Inc v Yugoimport –SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR 501 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a common law action to enforce a foreign judgment proceeds as an action to sue for the judgment debt on the basis of an implied contract. |
| Star Cruise Services Ltd v Overseas Union Bank Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 412 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts will look at the substance of a transaction to determine if it is a gaming or wagering contract. |
| Quek Chiau Beng v Phua Swee Pah Jimmy | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 762 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a loss cannot be disguised as a loan or sales contract to circumvent the gaming section. |
| Star City Pty Ltd (fka Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Ltd) v Tan Hong Woon | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 22 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the lex fori determines the true substance of a transaction to determine if enforcing a foreign cause of action would be contrary to local public policy. |
| Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR 690 | Singapore | Cited to determine whether section 5(2) of the Civil Law Act bars a common law action in Singapore upon a foreign judgment based on a foreign gambling debt. |
| Lowsley v Forbes (t/a L.E. Design Services) | House of Lords | Yes | [1998] 3 W.L.R. 501 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the word “action” in s 24(1) meant a fresh action upon a judgment for another substantive judgment and did not include proceedings by way of execution. |
| Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v ALTS Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 All ER 304 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that “an action upon a judgment” had the special or technical meaning of a “fresh action” brought upon a judgment in order to obtain a second judgment, which could be executed. |
| Tan Kim Seng v Ibrahim Victor Adam | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR 181 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there was a distinction between “execution” and “an action upon any judgment”. |
| Abdul Rahman Showlag v Abdel Moniem Mansour | Privy Council | Yes | 1 AC 431 | Jersey | Cited for the principle that where there are two competing foreign judgments, the earlier in time must be recognised and given effect to the exclusion of the later. |
| Murakami Takako (executrix of the estate of Takashi Murakami Suroso, deceased) v Wirayadi Louise Maria and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR 565 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the time bar for a fresh action upon a foreign judgment for enforcement was 6 years. |
| Saeng-Un Udom v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle on how the court ought to treat the evidence of an expert in the absence of contrary expert evidence. |
| Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 983 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court must not unquestioningly accept unchallenged evidence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Foreign Judgment
- Wagering Contract
- Limitation Act
- Civil Law Act
- Gaming Debt
- Implied Contract
- Enforcement
- Lex Fori
- Comity
- Default Judgment
15.2 Keywords
- Foreign Judgment
- Enforcement
- Gambling Debt
- Wagering Contract
- Limitation Act
- Civil Law Act
- Singapore
- Caesars Palace
16. Subjects
- Conflict of Laws
- Contract Law
- Gaming Law
- Civil Procedure
- Limitation of Actions
17. Areas of Law
- Conflict of Laws
- Limitation of Actions
- Gaming Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure