Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Lin Lester

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 26 August 2013
• Date: 26 August 2013
• Docket Number: Suit No 792 of 2010
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Ong Boon Lin Lester

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 163

Lai Siu Chiu J

Suit No 792 of 2010

High Court

Contract—Illegality and public policy—Statutory illegality—Patron handing over $100,000 cash to casino operator and withdrawing $100,000 in chips—Patron applying for credit facility from casino operator—Patron not having $100,000 in his deposit account at the time casino operator provided him with chips on credit—Whether patron was a premium player at the time casino operator provided him with chips on credit—Whether patron made deposit into deposit account—Whether patron remained a premium player when casino operator provided him with chips on credit—Sections 2 and 108 Casino Control Act (Cap 33 A, 2007 Rev Ed) —Regulation 4 Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010 (S 53/2010)

Contract—Illegality and public policy—Statutory illegality—Patron handing over $100,000 cash to casino operator and withdrawing $100,000 in chips—Patron applying for credit facility from casino operator—Whether casino operator complied with all relevant controls and procedures approved by Casino Regulatory Authority in providing chips on credit to patron—Whether patron made deposit into deposit account—Whether casino operator provided credit without prior request of patron—Section 108 Casino Control Act (Cap 33 A, 2007 Rev Ed) —Regulation 6 Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010 (S 53/2010)

Statutory Interpretation—Definitions—Patron handing over $100,000 cash to casino operator and withdrawing $100,000 in chips—Patron applying for credit facility from casino operator—Patron not having $100,000 in his deposit account at the time casino operator provided him with chips on credit—Whether patron was a premium player at the time casino operator provided him with chips on credit—Sections 2 and 108 Casino Control Act (Cap 33 A, 2007 Rev Ed) —Regulation 3 Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010 (S 53/2010)

Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd (‘the Plaintiff’), which operated a casino in Singapore (‘the casino’), claimed that Ong Boon Lin Lester (‘the Defendant’) failed to repay a debt owed to the Plaintiff, in breach of a credit agreement that the parties had executed. The Plaintiff claimed the sum of $240,868 (‘the Principal Amount’) owed by the Defendant together with interest thereon.

On 1 May 2010, the Defendant registered to be a member of Paiza (which was the Plaintiff's exclusive club for its valued patrons) and enrolled in the ‘Non-Negotiable Chip Rolling Program’ (‘the NNCR Programme’), a programme that allowed patrons to earn commission when gambling losses were incurred by them. On that same day, the Plaintiff opened a deposit account (‘the Deposit Account’) for the Defendant when the Defendant deposited cash of $100,000. Subsequently, the Defendant withdrew the $100,000 in non-negotiable chips (‘NN 1 Chips’). These were chips that were issued under the NNCR Programme.

The Defendant submitted the Plaintiff's credit application/cheque cashing application dated 1 May 2010 (‘the Credit Application’) applying for a credit facility of $1 m. He then executed the credit/cheque cashing agreement (‘the Credit Agreement’) also dated 1 May 2010 with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff only approved the Defendant's credit for $250,000. The Defendant withdrew the entire amount of $250,000 from his credit line when the Plaintiff issued 250,000 NN 1 Chips to him. The Defendant signed a promissory note dated 3 May 2010, agreeing to pay the Plaintiff $250,000 on demand.

As the Defendant failed to repay the debt, the Plaintiff commenced this suit claiming the Principal Amount and 12% default contractual interest. The Defendant's defence to the Plaintiff's claim was that the Plaintiff's extension of credit to the Defendant was unenforceable because the Defendant was not a ‘premium player’ (‘Premium Player’) according to the Casino Control Act (Cap 33 A, 2007 Rev Ed) (‘the CCA’) and that the Plaintiff did not comply with all the relevant controls and procedures approved by the Casino Regulatory Authority (‘the CRA’).

Held, allowing the claim:

(1) Section 108 (1) of the CCA provided that except where it was allowed by that section, the extension of credit by a casino operator was prohibited: at [16] .

(2) Section 108 (7) provided that a casino operator might provide chips on credit to a person who was not a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore, or a person who was a Premium Player, provided that the casino operator and the person satisfied the requirements of any relevant controls and procedures approved by the CRA. Section 2 of the CCA defined a Premium Player as a patron of a casino who maintained a deposit account with the casino operator with a credit balance of not less than $100,000 before the commencement of play by him in the casino: at [16] and [27] .

(3) The Defendant was a Premium Player because he had a Deposit Account and he deposited $100,000 into the Deposit Account. The Defendant's argument that his placement of the $100,000 cash with the casino cage was not a deposit but merely an exchange of $100,000 for the same value in gambling chips was inconsistent with the documentary evidence. The signing of the NNCR Programme Agreement constituted a request by the Defendant to open the Deposit Account with the Plaintiff. After enrolling into that programme, the Defendant made several transactions that confirmed his understanding that a Deposit Account had been opened for him: at [30] to [36] and [45] .

(4) Section 2 of the CCA did not provide for the period when a patron remained qualified as a Premium Player, ie, when a patron ceased to be a Premium Player, and it did not prescribe a continuous condition of maintaining $100,000 in the deposit account in order to remain a Premium Player. Regulation 4 (1) of the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010 (S 53/2010) (‘CCCR’) clearly provided that a patron remained qualified as a Premium Player if there was at least $100,000 in his deposit account, upon the expiry of a ‘period of play’ and before the subsequent commencement of a ‘period of play’ by him in the casino. Regulations 4 (2) and 4 (3) prescribed that the ‘period of play’ shall be a continuous period of one year, unless a patron's deposit account was closed: at [49] , [51] and [54] .

(5) The Defendant remained a Premium Player even after he withdrew $100,000 in his Deposit Account: at [57] .

(6) In enrolling in the NNCR Programme Agreement, which contained the requirement for a Deposit Account, the Defendant had to have appreciated what he signed. The Defendant's carelessness if it was the case, in reading cl 1 of the NNCR Programme Agreement disentitled him from pleading non est factum: at [37] and [40] to [42] .

(7) As provided by s 108 (9) of the CCA, where a casino operator provided chips on credit to persons other than as permitted under ss 108 (7) (a) and 108 (7) (b), the casino operator shall be deemed to be a moneylender for the purposes of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed). Section 14 (2) of the Moneylenders Act provided that a contract for a loan granted by an unlicensed moneylender would be unenforceable: at [17] and [18] .

(8) In the present case, the Plaintiff had complied with the relevant controls and procedures approved by the CRA as the Defendant had in fact made a prior request for credit in the form of submitting a written application for credit of $1 m before chips on credit were provided to him: at [66] .

L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 (folld)

Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Frankel Motor Pte Ltd [2009] 3 SLR (R) 623; [2009] 3 SLR 623 (folld)

Serangoon Garden Estate Ltd v Marian Chye [1959] MLJ 113 (folld)

Casino Control Act (Cap 33 A, 2007 Rev Ed) ss 2, 108 (consd) ;ss 40, 108 (1) , 108 (7) , 108 (7) (a) , 108 (7) (b) , 108 (9)

Casino Control (Casino Tax) Regulations 2010 (S 59/2010) reg 3

Casino Control (Conduct of Gaming) Regulations 2009 (S 594/2009) reg 9

Casino Control (Credit) Regulations 2010 (S 53/2010) regs 3 (1) , 4, 6 (consd) ;regs 2 A, 2 B, 3, 4 (1) , 4 (2) , 4 (3)

Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 5

Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) ss 5 (1) , 14, 14 (2)

Surenthiraraj s/o Saunthararajah (alias SSuressh), Toh Wei Yi and Sunil Nair (Harry Elias Partnership LLP) for the plaintiff

Sunil Singh Panoo and Suppiah Krishnamurthi (Dhillon & Partners) for the defendant.

Judgment reserved.

Lai Siu Chiu J

Introduction

1 In the present action, Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd (‘the Plaintiff’), which operates a casino (‘the casino’) at its namesake hotel in Singapore, is claiming that Ong Boon Lin Lester (‘the Defendant’) failed to repay a debt owed to the Plaintiff, in breach of a credit agreement that the parties had executed. The Plaintiff claims, inter alia, the sum of $240,868 (‘the Principal Amount’) being the principal amount owed by the Defendant together with interest due thereon.

The background

2 The Defendant first patronised the casino on 1 May 2010. On the same day, the Defendant registered to be a member of Paiza (which was the Plaintiff's exclusive club for its valued patrons) and enrolled in the ‘Non-Negotiable Chip Rolling Program’ (‘the NNCR Programme’), a programme that allowed patrons to earn commissions when losses were incurred by patrons.

3 On that same day, the Plaintiff opened a deposit account (‘Deposit Account’) for the Defendant and the Defendant allegedly deposited cash amounting to $100,000 into the Deposit Account. This was evidenced by the ‘Front Money Deposit’ slip, which was acknowledged by the Defendant. Subsequently, the Defendant withdrew $100,000 in non-negotiable chips (‘NN 1 Chips’). These were chips that were issued under the NNCR Programme.

4 The Defendant submitted the Plaintiff's credit application/cheque cashing application dated 1 May 2010 (‘the Credit Application’) applying for a credit facility of $1 m. He then executed the...