Resorts World v Lee Fook Kheun: Casino Credit Facility, Intoxication & Contract Rescission
In Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Lee Fook Kheun, the Singapore High Court addressed a claim by Resorts World against Mr. Lee for $5,930,595 remaining outstanding from a $10 million credit facility. Mr. Lee contested the claim, arguing intoxication and non-compliance with casino regulations, and counterclaimed for sums previously paid. The court ruled in favor of Resorts World, finding that Mr. Lee failed to prove intoxication or regulatory breaches, and dismissed his counterclaim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff; Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on a casino's credit facility claim against a patron, addressing intoxication, contract rescission, and regulatory compliance.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | N Sreenivasan, Shankar s/o Angammah Sevasamy, Lim Min |
| Lee Fook Kheun | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim Dismissed | Lost | Palmer Michael Anthony, Reuben Tan Wei Jer |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Valerie Thean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| N Sreenivasan | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Shankar s/o Angammah Sevasamy | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Lim Min | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Palmer Michael Anthony | Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC |
| Reuben Tan Wei Jer | Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC |
4. Facts
- RWS extended a credit facility of $5 million to Mr. Lee on 20 August 2010, increased by another $5 million on 22 August 2010.
- Mr. Lee fully drew down the $10 million credit facility.
- Mr. Lee made partial repayments, leaving $5,930,595 outstanding.
- Mr. Lee signed a Request Form and Amendment Form for the credit facility.
- Mr. Lee signed a Settlement Agreement acknowledging the debt.
- Mr. Lee made 46 payments to RWS from 23 August 2010 to 21 August 2015, totaling $4,067,287.00.
- Mr. Lee claimed he was intoxicated when he signed the Credit Agreements.
5. Formal Citations
- Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Lee Fook Kheun, Suit No 152 of 2016, [2018] SGHC 173
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Lee's first visit to RWS. | |
| Mr. Lee obtained a credit facility of $5 million from RWS. | |
| Mr. Lee obtained an increase in his credit facility with RWS to $10 million. | |
| Mr. Lee made repayments to RWS. | |
| Mr. Lee prepared 25 post-dated cheques of RM500,000.00 in favor of RWS. | |
| Mr. Lee signed a settlement agreement acknowledging that he owed $10 million to RWS. | |
| Mr. Lee's last payment to RWS. | |
| Suit No 152 of 2016 filed. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Intoxication
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Lee was not intoxicated to such an extent that he failed to understand the nature or effect of the Credit Agreements, nor was RWS aware of any impairment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Impairment of mental capacity
- Ability to understand the nature and effect of the transaction
- Knowledge of infirmity by counterparty
- Related Cases:
- [1925] 42 TLR 1
- (1946) 115 LJKB 305, 307
- (1849) 4 Exch 17,19
- Contract Rescission
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Lee did not make any attempt to rescind the Credit Agreement and that his undue delay and various payments amount to affirmation of the Credit Agreements.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Communication of intention to disaffirm
- Affirmation of contract through conduct
- Knowledge of legal rights
- Related Cases:
- [2018] SGCA 36
- [1985] Ch 475
- Compliance with Casino Control Regulations
- Outcome: The court found that RWS complied with regulations 6 and 12, as Mr. Lee made written requests for credit and RWS carried out various credit searches pursuant to its policy prior to granting his requests.
- Category: Regulatory
- Sub-Issues:
- Prior request for credit
- Implementation of credit policy
- Proper checks before credit agreements
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 4 SLR 593
- Civil Law Act and Gaming Contracts
- Outcome: The court determined that s 40(c) of the CCA was applicable as RWS complied with s 108 of the CCA and regulations 6(a) and 12 of the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010.
- Category: Statutory Interpretation
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of gaming contracts
- Exceptions to the nullity of gaming contracts
- Application of Civil Law Act
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Gambling
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOK v BOL | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 316 | Singapore | Cited for the criteria to invoke the doctrine of unconscionability. |
| Strait Colonies Pte Ltd v SMRT Alpha Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] SGCA 36 | Singapore | Cited for guidance on what constitutes a binding election to affirm a contract. |
| PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 98 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of pleadings. |
| SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 118 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of pleadings. |
| Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 283 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of communication of choice to the other party in clear and unequivocal terms for a binding election. |
| Sargent v ASL Developments Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1974) 131 CLR 634 | Australia | Cited for the conduct constituting affirmation must be unequivocal. |
| Peyman v Lanjani | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985] Ch 475 | England and Wales | Cited for the contention that a party cannot be held to have made a choice to affirm or rescind a contract unless he has actual knowledge of his legal right to make that choice. |
| X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council | House of Lords | Yes | [1995] 2 AC 633 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a breach of a statutory duty would only give rise to a private law cause of action only if the statutory duty was imposed for the protection of a limited class of the public and that Parliament intended to confer on members of that class a private right of action for breach of the duty. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 788 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the plaintiff did not fall within the limited class intended to be protected under s 199(2A), nor was there any indication that Parliament intended to arm those within the limited class with a civil remedy against the company for breach of that statutory duty. |
| Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Lin Lester | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 593 | Singapore | Cited for the approach that what regulation 6 prohibits is the provision of credit without any request of the patron. |
| Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 363 | Singapore | Mentioned in the context of the doctrine of illegality and public policy in the context of contracts prohibited by statute. |
| Molton v Camroux | N/A | Yes | (1849) 4 Exch 17,19 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that intoxication results in impairment of mental capacity, and for that reason has been likened in the law to mental incapacity. |
| Manches v Trimborn | N/A | Yes | (1946) 115 LJKB 305, 307 | England and Wales | Cited for the level of understanding required for rescission due to intoxication. |
| York Glass Co Ltd v Jubb | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1925) 42 TLR 1 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the counterparty to the transaction must have known of the infirmity. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 8 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a threat to enforce one’s legal rights do not amount to duress, where the threat was made bona fide, and was not manifestly frivolous or vexatious. |
| North Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Hyundai Construction Co Ltd (The Atlantic Baron) | N/A | Yes | [1979] 1 QB 705 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that by making further payments under the contract without protest, and delaying for about seven months before making a claim for the return of the extra payments, the ship owners had, through their conduct, affirmed the contract. |
| Matthews v Baxter | N/A | Yes | (1873) LR 8 Exch 132 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that if a drunken man, upon coming to his senses, ratifies the contract, he is bound by it. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| 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 |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Credit Facility
- Credit Agreements
- Settlement Agreement
- Intoxication
- Rescission
- Casino Control Act
- Casino Credit Policy
- Credit Marker
- Amendment Form
15.2 Keywords
- Casino
- Credit
- Intoxication
- Contract
- Rescission
- Singapore
- Gaming
- Debt
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Gaming Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Casino Control Act
- Betting, gaming and lotteries
- Loans