Goel Adesh Kumar v Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd (SATS Security Services Pte Ltd, third party)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 04 November 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 289
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 484 of 2013
• Year: 2015
• Published date: 06 November 2015
• Hearing Date: 09 July 2015,14 July 2015,03 July 2015,15 July 2015,10 July 2015,08 July 2015,07 July 2015,01 July 2015,30 June 2015,03 September 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Abraham Vergis, Clive Myint Soe and Vanathi S (Providence Law Asia LLC) and Prakash Pillai and Clement Ong (Clasis LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: N. Sreenivasan SC, Shankar s/o Angammah Sevasamy and Derek Ow (Straits Law Practice LLC),Paul Seah Zhen Wei and Kang Weisheng Geraint Edward (Tan Kok Quan Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Assault and battery,damages,False imprisonment,Negligence,Vicarious liability
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 289

Choo Han Teck J:

Mr Goel is a lawyer from Australia who enjoys going to casinos. He became a Singapore permanent resident in 2010. On 21 April 2012, he went to the casino at Sentosa (“the casino”) operated by the defendant, Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd (“the Casino”) for a night of gambling. Around 4.25am the next morning, Mr Goel got into an argument with another patron in the casino. The dispute between them escalated and Mr Goel was eventually brought to a side room by employees of the Casino. The present suit arose from the events that ensued in the side room, which are captured on close-circuit television (‘CCTV’) albeit without audio.

Mr Goel claims that he was the victim of various tortious acts — false imprisonment, assault and battery – committed by the Casino’s security officers and the auxiliary police officers (“the APOs”) provided by SATS Security Services Pte Ltd (“SATS”) whilst they were in the side room. He claims that as a result of the tortious acts, he sustained serious injuries to his shoulder, which necessitated an arthroscopic operation on his right shoulder on 6 December 2012 and affected his quality of life and ability to work.

On 29 May 2013, he sued the Casino in the High Court for vicarious liability for the tortious acts of its security personnel and for negligence in failing to keep him safe and secure while within its premises. The Casino in turn brought SATS in as a third party on 19 November 2013 to seek an indemnity or contribution against it for any damages that the Casino may be liable for in this suit.

In addition to damages for pain and suffering and the medical expenses that were incurred for the injuries, Mr Goel is also claiming loss of income amounting to $407,280.42 from the loss of one of his customers, Mr Zeljko Ranogajec (“Mr Ranogajec”). He also seeks general damages for the loss of his year-long membership of the Casino and loss of the credit that he had accumulated in his Genting Rewards Gold Card as at 22 April 2012. Counsel for Mr Goel, Mr Abraham Vergis (“Mr Vergis”) also urges the court to order aggravated and exemplary damages against the Casino for its “haughty and high-handed attitude”. The damages for loss of income and aggravated and exemplary damages form the bulk of Mr Goel’s claim, without which this case would not have exceeded the jurisdictional limit to be heard in the High Court.

The parties went into great detail on the events that occurred before Mr Goel was brought into the side room. Those events are useful as background to understand why the incident developed as it did, but are irrelevant to the issue of liability especially in respect of the alleged torts that were committed.

Mr Goel was described by Mr Vergis, and acknowledged by the Casino, as a “high roller” although what that meant exactly was not explored, save that he was entitled to use the “Maxim” room. Mr Goel stated in his evidence-in-chief that he enjoys “the past-time of gambling”. He was a frequent patron of the casino, as evidenced by the 19 visits he made to the casino from January to mid-April 2012. He advanced from the basic membership to Silver and then to the Gold Card Membership, meaning that his privileges were increased.

On 21 April 2012, Mr Goel entered the casino at 4.32pm. He left and returned to the casino a few times in the hours that ensued. Finally, at about 4.14am on 22 April 2012, he went to a gaming table to play Pontoon, which he described is similar to the game of Blackjack. He sat next to two other patrons, Mr Tan Chee Kheng (“Mr Tan”) and Miss Loi You Phing (“Miss Loi”). Mr Goel does not know either Mr Tan or Miss Loi. At about 4.25am, Mr Tan mistakenly took a chip that belonged to Mr Goel. That resulted in an altercation between Mr Tan and Mr Goel. From the camera footage from the CCTV (which had no audio recording), Mr Tan appeared agitated. The CCTV footage shows a standing Mr Tan gesticulating at a seated Mr Goel. Neither Mr Tan nor Miss Loi was called to testify at trial, but Ms Bridget Zhu (“Ms Zhu”), the shift manager of the Casino, testified in her evidence-in-chief that Mr Tan was angry because Mr Goel kept calling him a cheat.

The dispute attracted the attention of the table gaming pit manager, Mr Kenny Beh (“Mr Beh”), and the Ms Zhu, who approached them to diffuse the tension. Mr Tan and Miss Loi were eventually escorted away to a sofa where they had some refreshments while Ms Zhu talked to them. Mr Goel continued gambling.

A short while later (about 4.42am), Mr Tan returned to the Pontoon table and resumed his tirade against Mr Goel. Mr Beh again escorted Mr Tan away. He was brought to the entrance of the “high-rollers’ section” of the casino a short distance away. Whilst this was happening, Miss Loi returned to the table and stood behind Mr Goel. At about 4.46am, Mr Goel heard some commotion behind him and became aware that Mr Tan was complaining about him. He got up and walked towards Mr Tan. The two of them resumed verbal hostilities against each other, which might have ended in violence had the staff of the Casino not stopped them. Mr Tan and Ms Loi were escorted away for the third time.

Five minutes later, Ms Zhu introduced herself to Mr Goel. She assured him that she would take care of his interrupted Pontoon game. She then accompanied him to a side room to discuss the incident. Mr Goel agreed. The CCTV footage shows that while Ms Zhu was away, Mr Goel exchanged words with the security officers. According to the Casino, this exchange was not a cordial one as Mr Goel was rude to the security officers. Mr Goel denies this, stating that he merely rejected their offer to enter the side room and told them that Ms Zhu asked him to wait for her.

Ms Zhu returned at about 4.55am and Mr Goel freely walked with her to the side room. They were accompanied by Mr Kelvin Yong (“Mr Yong”), the “VIP” services director of the Casino, Mr Talib bin Abdul Rahim, a security officer of the Casino, and Mr Adi Mirza Sadli, (“Mr Adi”), a SATS APO. Mr Alex Lai (“Mr Lai”) entered the room soon after. Mr Goel was displeased that so many security personnel were in the room. At his insistence, the security officers left the room, leaving only Mr Yong, Ms Zhu and Mr Goel behind. Mr Lai, however, returned two minutes later. After briefly speaking to Ms Zhu and Mr Yong, Mr Goel demanded to speak to the Casino shift manager whom he thought would be the most senior person on duty.

At about 5.03am, Mr Goel wanted to leave the room but was prevented from doing so by Mr Lai. Mr Goel became visibly agitated. For the next hour and 20 minutes until 6.25am, Mr Goel did not leave the room. In the intervening period, Mr Goel made several attempts to leave the room but was repeatedly stopped by the security officers (namely, Mr Lai and Mr Samsuddin Mahmud (“Mr Mahmud”), the Casino’s security shift manager, and Mr Adi and Mr Anuar bin Kamis (“Mr Anuar”) from SATS). There were periods where he appeared to have calmed down and spoke amicably to some of the Casino’s staff (principally Mr Yong, Ms Zhu, and Mr Mahmud). On a few occasions, Mr Goel was seen to be speaking to the CCTV cameras, as though appealing for help from, or seeking the attention of, the security staff watching the live footage. It was undisputed that at 5.25am and again at 5.43am, Mr Goel called the police using his mobile phone in the presence of Mr Mahmud. Two police officers arrived in response to his calls at 5.49am.

Given that Mr Goel alleges that battery and assault were inflicted on him, it is important to examine the various scuffles (or potential acts of battery) that he had with the security officers. The footage shows that from around 5.05am to 5.16am, Mr Lai was involved in multiple brief scuffles with Mr Goel. These scuffles ensued when Mr Goel tried to leave the room, when he tried to take photographs of Mr Lai using his mobile phone and when he tried to snatch Mr Lai’s identification card. Mr Vergis submits that Mr Goel also felt threatened when Mr Lai placed his hand on his belt at 5.16am because he thought Mr Lai was going to subdue him with a weapon. This is denied by the Casino, who takes the position that Mr Lai had no such intention and in any case, had no weapon with him. Mr Goel did not appear intimidated at all.

The next round of scuffles took place from 5.33am to 5.48am. They involved Mr Goel, Mr Adi, Mr Anuar and Mr Mahmud. At 5.34am, the CCTV footage shows Mr Goel being restrained by Mr Mahmud, and Mr Adi and Mr Anuar grabbing hold of his left and right arm respectively. The situation became more chaotic when Mr Goel again tried to force his way to the door. The scuffles between them resulted in Mr Goel being pushed against the wall on two occasions, once at 5.35am and again at 5.39am. Mr Goel proceeded to shift the furniture in the room in what appeared like an attempt to create a barricade around him. Peculiarly, Mr Goel was seen to be lying on the ground for a few seconds at 5.43am. The parties put forward different accounts for this act. Mr Vergis submits that Mr Goel was by that time resigned to his fate and laid “defencelessly on the floor” ready to receive a beating. On the other hand, counsel for the Casino, Mr N. Sreenivasan, SC (“Mr Sreenivasan”), argues that it was a provocative and vulgar act by Mr Goel.

At 5.49am, two police officers arrived. Mr Goel finally left the room at 6.25am accompanied by the police officers. Some of the Casino staff and APOs followed behind them on their way out of the casino. Another issue arises from this. Mr Vergis submits that the Casino deliberately made Mr Goel take a much longer exit route, which involved an escalator ride and a walk through the main gaming floor of the casino, even though there was an exit close to the side room. After the police had recorded a statement from him, Mr Goel left the casino with deep resentment — and a notice of Persona Non Grata which prohibited...