Marina Bay Sands v Ong Boon Lin: Enforceability of Casino Credit Agreement for Premium Player

In Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Lin Lester, the Singapore High Court addressed a breach of contract claim by Marina Bay Sands against Ong Boon Lin Lester for failing to repay a debt under a credit agreement. The court, presided over by Lai Siu Chiu J, ruled in favor of Marina Bay Sands, finding that Ong was a 'Premium Player' at the time the credit was extended and that Marina Bay Sands had complied with all relevant regulatory controls and procedures. The court awarded Marina Bay Sands $240,868.00, default interest, and costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding the enforceability of a credit agreement between Marina Bay Sands and a casino patron, Ong Boon Lin.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
MARINA BAY SANDS PTE LTDPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Ong Boon Lin LesterDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sunil NairHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Toh Wei YiHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Surenthiraraj s/o Saunthararajah @ S. SuresshHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Suppiah KrishnamurthiDhillon & Partners
Sunil Singh PanooDhillon & Partners

4. Facts

  1. The Plaintiff operates a casino at Marina Bay Sands in Singapore.
  2. The Defendant patronized the casino and registered as a member of Paiza.
  3. The Defendant enrolled in the Non-Negotiable Chip Rolling Program.
  4. The Plaintiff opened a deposit account for the Defendant.
  5. The Defendant deposited $100,000 into the Deposit Account.
  6. The Defendant submitted a Credit Application for a credit facility of $1m.
  7. The Defendant executed the Credit Agreement with the Plaintiff.
  8. The Plaintiff approved a credit limit of $250,000 for the Defendant.
  9. The Defendant withdrew $250,000 in non-negotiable chips.
  10. The Defendant signed a promissory note agreeing to pay the Plaintiff $250,000 on demand.
  11. The Defendant lost his deposit of $100,000 and the credit of $250,000.
  12. The commission due to the Defendant was calculated to be $9,132.
  13. The total sum owing by the Defendant was $240,868 after setting off the commission.
  14. The Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant, but the Defendant failed to pay.
  15. The Plaintiff presented the Defendant’s Cheque for payment, but it was dishonoured.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Lin Lester, Suit No 792 of 2010, [2013] SGHC 163

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendant first patronised the casino
Defendant registered as a member of Paiza and enrolled in the NNCR programme
Plaintiff opened a deposit account for the Defendant
Defendant deposited $100,000 into the Deposit Account
Defendant submitted the Credit Application
Defendant executed the Credit Agreement
Defendant signed a promissory note agreeing to pay the Plaintiff $250,000 on demand
Defendant's gambling sessions ended
Maturity Date of the Credit Agreement
Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant
Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant
Plaintiff presented the Defendant’s Cheque for payment
Defendant’s Cheque was dishonoured and returned
Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the Principal Amount was due
Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the Principal Amount was due
Accrued interest period began
Plaintiff’s solicitors sent a letter of demand to the Defendant
Accrued interest period ended
Plaintiff commenced this suit
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforceability of Credit Agreement
    • Outcome: The court held that the credit agreement was enforceable because the Defendant was a Premium Player and the Plaintiff complied with the relevant controls and procedures.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Compliance with Casino Control Act
      • Premium Player Status
      • Unsolicited Credit
  2. Premium Player Status
    • Outcome: The court held that the Defendant was a Premium Player at the time the Plaintiff provided him with chips on credit.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Compliance with CRA Controls and Procedures
    • Outcome: The court held that the Plaintiff did comply with all the relevant controls and procedures approved by the CRA in providing chips on credit to the Defendant.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Request for Deposit Account
      • Solicitation of Credit
  4. Non est factum
    • Outcome: The court rejected the Defendant's argument of non est factum.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1934] 2 KB 394
      • [1959] MLJ 113
      • [2009] 3 SLR(R) 623

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Interest
  3. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Breach of Contract

11. Industries

  • Gambling
  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
L’Estrange v F Graucob LtdN/AYes[1934] 2 KB 394N/ACited for the principle that one is generally bound by one’s signature on a contract even if one is unaware of the existence or effect of some particular term in the contract.
Serangoon Garden Estate Ltd v Marian ChyeN/AYes[1959] MLJ 113N/ACited for the principle that one is generally bound by one’s signature on a contract even if one is unaware of the existence or effect of some particular term in the contract.
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Frankel Motor Pte Ltd and othersN/AYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 623N/ACited for the requirements for non est factum to be successfully invoked.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Casino Control Act (Cap 33A, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Casino Control Act (Cap 33A, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed)Singapore
Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Premium Player
  • Non-Negotiable Chip Rolling Program
  • Deposit Account
  • Credit Agreement
  • Maturity Date
  • Front Money Deposit
  • Casino
  • Chips
  • Credit
  • Casino Regulatory Authority

15.2 Keywords

  • Casino
  • Credit Agreement
  • Premium Player
  • Singapore
  • Gambling
  • Marina Bay Sands
  • Casino Control Act
  • Breach of Contract

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Casinos and Gambling90
Contract Law70
Credit Agreement50
Banking and Finance30

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Gaming Law
  • Casino Regulations