Loh Chee Song v Liew Yong Chian

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChoo Han Teck JC
Judgment Date19 January 1998
Neutral Citation[1998] SGHC 21
Docket NumberSuit No 1763 of 1996
Date19 January 1998
Year1998
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselLow Chai Chong and James Wong (Rodyk & Davidson)
Citation[1998] SGHC 21
Defendant CounselHenry GS Lim (GS Lim & Partners)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterWhether s 6 Civil Law Act applicable,Whether offence under Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49),s 6 Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1994 Ed),Loans for purpose of gambling,Loan without interest,Gambling on board cruise vessel in international waters,No evidence as to flag of vessel,Illegality and public policy,Moneylenders Act (Cap 188),Credit and Security,Money and moneylenders,Conflict of Laws,Gaming and wagering contract -Gambling on board cruise vessel in international waters,Choice of law,Whether carrying on business of moneylending,Whether Singapore law applicable,Whether against public policy to allow recovery of loans,No express intention as to choice of law,Contract
Judgment:

CHOO HAN TECK JC

Cur Adv Vult

The plaintiff, aged 25, was at the material times working as a `junket`. He had been a `runner` (that is, a junket`s assistant) for three months before he became a junket. He described the junket`s job as that of an independent operator who procured customers to patronise the casino on board cruise ships. He obtained `rolling chips` from the casino which he re-sold to his customers. The casino gave him a 1.7% discount for every dollar`s chip purchased. If a customer had bought these chips directly from the casino he (the customer) would not have been given any discount, but if he bought them from a junket he would get up to 1.4% discount per dollar from the junket. The junket`s profit was thus the 0.3% difference. The plaintiff`s average monthly income from such earnings was $10,000. He testified that he had no other income. The casinos in question were set up on board cruise ships which used to be berthed at the World Trade Centre until the authorities withdrew their permission to the operators. See Lines International Holding (S) Pte Ltd v Singapore Tourist Promotion Board [1997] 2 SLR 584 , a case which involved the cruise ship `Nautican`. The facts in this case occurred prior to the Nautican case. The cruise ships left the World Trade Centre with a mixture of holiday customers as well as gamblers. The holiday makers paid for their cabins and passage, but the gamblers were given free accommodation. The operators took care to operate their casino only after the vessel had left the territorial limits of Singapore.

2.The defendant, aged 31, was a businessman who helped his father run a mini-supermarket. He had also once operated a money-changing business together with his wife. He was a regular customer of the floating casinos on the high seas. In the course of time he became a regular customer of the plaintiff. In the usual course of business, the defendant, like the other gamblers, would settle his account with the casino at the end of each trip (see para 10 of the plaintiff`s affidavit of evidence-in-chief). An account would also be taken at that stage as to what the junket owes the gambler in terms of the discount on the rolling chips against the cost of the chips taken by the gambler. The plaintiff`s evidence was that over a period of a year the defendant had earned a total of $20,000 discount based on 1.4%. However, he began a losing streak and suffered losses but continued to obtain chips from the plaintiff on credit. Consequently, he owed the plaintiff $114,738 from the advances given by the plaintiff to him in respect of the purchase of rolling chips. Furthermore, in November 1995 and January 1996 the defendant borrowed $20,000 on each occasion directly from the plaintiff. The total owing was thus $154,738. The plaintiff told the defendant to set-off $4,738 against a payment which the plaintiff was obliged to pay on behalf of the defendant and, in March 1996, asked for payment of the balance $150,000. The defendant gave three cheques post-dated 3 July 1996 of $50,000 each drawn on the OCBC bank at the Bukit Panjang branch, Singapore. On the due date the plaintiff presented the cheques for payment and was notified by his bank that the cheques were dishonoured. He thus commenced this action on the three dishonoured cheques.

3.The defendant put up a three-fold defence. First, he says that the cheques were given under duress. I have no hesitation in dismissing this defence because it was pleaded with no particulars. The evidence adduced was sparse - `He verbally threatened to beat me up if I did not co-operate`. His evidence relating to the opening of the OCBC account from which he drew up the three cheques in question was unconvincing. He said that he was forced to open the account in order to draw up the cheques, but had promptly used that account for his own convenience. There was hardly any indication of any duress or threat, let alone his being put in fear of such. He did not make a police report although he had previously made two reports against the plaintiff on two other matters. He did not give details of the threats to his lawyers, and the only excuse he gave was that the plaintiff did not carry out the threat.

4.The second defence was based on the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188). The defendant claimed that the cheques totaling $150,000 were in payment of money borrowed from the plaintiff who carried on the business of a moneylender. Like his defence of duress, this defence was not seriously pursued by his counsel who, had all but abandoned it by the time the submissions were made. The defendant was unable to show which part of the $150,000 constituted principal and which constituted interest. There was no evidence whatsoever as to how interest was charged, or at what rate. Moneylending is illegal only if it was carried on as a business. It is difficult to see how the plaintiff could carry on a moneylending business without charging interest.

5.The third defence was based on public policy, namely that the loans were irrecoverable because they were made for the purposes of enabling the defendant to participate in unlawful gambling. Counsel submitted that s 6 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1994 Ed) applied because gambling on board the cruise ships was illegal by virtue of the Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49). He argued that since gambling in a casino would have offended the Common Gaming Houses Act, it would be against public policy to let a person recover a loan made for the purposes of gaming in contravention of the Act. I shall revert to this defence shortly. First I shall deal with the reference to s6 of the Civil Law Act because in my view, it was a point made totally off the mark. The relevant portion of s 6 provides as follows:

(1) All contracts or agreements, whether by parol or in writing, by way of gaming or wagering shall be null and void.

(2) No action shall be brought or maintained in the court for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager or which has been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager has been made.

(3) Any promise, express or implied, to pay any person any sum of money paid by him under or in respect of any contract or agreement rendered null and void by subsections (1) and (2), or to pay any sum of money by way of commission, fee, reward or otherwise in respect of such contract or of any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Star Cruise Services Ltd v Overseas Union Bank Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 Abril 1999
    ...(a firm) v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548, HL (folld) Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co [1912] AC 716 (refd) Loh Chee Song v Liew Yong Chian [1998] 1 SLR (R) 297; [1998] 2 SLR 641 (distd) Luckett v Wood (1908) 24 TLR 617 (refd) MacDonald v Green [1951] 1 KB 594 (refd) Morgan v Ashcroft [1938] 1 KB 49......
  • Quek Chiau Beng v Phua Swee Pah Jimmy
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 Noviembre 2000
    ......The same applies to Loh Chee Song v Liew Yong Chian [1998] 2 SLR 641 . It was not the ......
  • Burswood Nominees Ltd (formerly Burswood Nominees Pty Ltd) v Liao Eng Kiat
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 1 Abril 2004
    ...outside the scope of s 5(2) of the CLA altogether. The same reasoning was adopted by Choo Han Teck JC in Loh Chee Song v Liew Yong Chian [1998] 2 SLR 641. 26 The Court of Appeal in Star City Pty Ltd v Tan Hong Woon further held that s 5(2) is a procedural provision which applies whenever fo......
  • Star City Pty Ltd (fka Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Ltd) v Tan Hong Woon
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 25 Febrero 2002
    ...1 All ER 124 (refd) Lipkin Gorman (a firm) v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548; [1992] 4 All ER 512 (refd) Loh Chee Song v Liew Yong Chian [1998] 1 SLR (R) 297; [1998] 2 SLR 641 (refd) MacDonald v Green [1951] 1 KB 594; [1950] 2 All ER 1240 (refd) Monterosso Shipping Co Ltd v International Trans......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT