Quek Chiau Beng v Phua Swee Pah Jimmy

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeG P Selvam J
Judgment Date24 November 2000
Neutral Citation[2000] SGHC 247
Docket NumberDC Suit No 50072 of 1999 (Registrar's
Date24 November 2000
Year2000
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselLee Mun Hooi and Ng Chong Hsing (Lee Mun Hooi & Co)
Citation[2000] SGHC 247
Defendant CounselG Raman (G Raman & Partners)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterWhether Recovery under a loan,Whether invalidity of gaming contract not affected by use of gaming chips instead of cash,Illegality and public policy,Civil Procedure,Action to recover gambling debt,Whether action to recover gambling debt prohibited by law,Gaming contract,Contract,Action prohibited by law,Unconditional leave to defend,s 5(2) Civil Law Act (Cap 43),Whether summary judgment appropriate,Summary judgment

: The case

The plaintiff in this action claims S$160,000 from the defendant.
That amount is endorsed on a baccarat score card of Crown Casino in Melbourne, Australia.

The basis of the claim is that on 4 October 1998 the defendant had rolled an estimated sum of A$586,000 of uncashable rolling chips.
He returned part of the chips. At the end of the day, after giving credit to commission and payment, he owed the amount claimed. The statement of claim dated 21 January 1999 says that the defendant gambled at the Crown Casino in Melbourne, Australia. The statement of claim does not say in terms that the amount he allegedly owes is his net loss. But there can be no doubt that on the allegations, the defendant incurred a debt because he lost at baccarat. More will be said about this later. The plaintiff asserts that he was a licensed junket operator of Crown Casino. The plaintiff goes on to allege that the defendant obtained uncashable rolling chips at the Casino, not from him, but from his representative called Chen Di Hua.

The defendant filed a defence.
He admits that he gambled and tumbled at the Crown Casino. He denies that the plaintiff approached him to gamble under any junket arranged at the Crown Casino. He denies in terms that he had any dealings with the plaintiff with regard to his gambling sessions at the Crown Casino and asserts that he had not obtained any `uncashable rolling chips` from the plaintiff or his representative. By way of a positive case the defendant asserts that he treated with one Quek Keng Siong, the father of the plaintiff (`Quek Sr`). The defendant goes on to assert that Quek Sr promised that ` credit will be extended to the defendant to gamble at the said Crown Casino: Based on this promise the defendant went to Melbourne on or about 30 September 1998`. [Italics here and hereafter supplied by me]. The defendant admits that `as arranged by the said Quek, whenever the defendant wished to make a bet, he would obtain chips from the said Quek at the said gambling table. The chips were however uncashable chips`. The defendant, on the decisive point at issue, says this: `When the gambling session ended in the morning of 5 October 1998, an account was taken between myself and the said Quek. Although the said Quek claimed that I owed him a sum of S$160,000 I disagreed with the said amount.` This assertion is further extended in the further and better particulars that `On the morning of 4 October 1998 when the said Quek produced a rough calculation of the accounts on a baccarat score card, the calculation therein was confusing and the defendant wanted the said Quek to clarify, which he failed to do so to date`.

The plaintiff applied for summary judgment.
In support of the application Quek Sr filed an affidavit. A copy of a baccarat score card No Z-95806178 was exhibited. An entry in the card was in English and Chinese. In translation it read: `Jening owed Singapore dollars S$160,000 - 3/10/98`. In the affidavit Quek Sr says, `at the end of the gambling session, it was stated in the scorecard and written in Chinese and was initialled by the defendant indicating that he was indebted to the plaintiff for the outstanding balance sum of S$160,000`. He then added, the defendant `has clearly admitted that he did on the above mentioned occasion gamble at Crown Casino with me`. The baccarat card does not say that he owes the plaintiff . It merely says `Jening Owed.` There is no explanation who `Jening` was.

The defendant has declined to admit that he signed the baccarat card.
I shall, however, assume that he did. On that assumption, the only conclusion to be drawn is the defendant gambled and tumbled to the tune of S$160,000.

A comment on the pleadings and affidavits

There is no mention anywhere in the documents that there was a loan. A loan is an amount of money transferred on the understanding that it will be returned. There is no allegation or evidence in the pleadings or affidavits that either of the Queks transferred any money to the defendant. The allegations and the evidence show that the defendant bet on baccarat and lost heavily. He is therefore being sued to recover a gambling debt. That being the case, this action was a non-starter. The reason is that s 5(2) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43) forbids in peremptory terms the bringing of such an action: ` No action shall be brought or maintained in the court for recovering any sum of money alleged to be won on any wager `. This is a reiteration of s 5(1) of the Civil Law Act which renders all contracts or agreements by way of gaming or wagering null and void. Its gloss is that a gambling debt cannot spawn a cause of action. It is a nudum pactum , an empty agreement. On the allegations in the statement of claim the action therefore is forbidden by statute and ought not to have been brought. (I shall call s 5 of the Civil Law Act as `the gaming section`).

A recap of the law of gaming contracts

In 1999 I tried two cases and delivered separate judgments:

1 Sun Cruises Ltd v Overseas Union Bank [1999] 3 SLR 404 .

2 Star Cruise Services Ltd v Overseas Union Bank Ltd [1999] 3 SLR 412 .

gambling on credit Sun Cruise Star Cruise I explained in the two judgments the civil law of gaming.
It would be salutary to sum up the salient points.

1 The gaming section does not render gambling illegal. It does not forbid gambling. The purpose of the provision is to put down . It means that the winner has no legal remedy against the loser to recover his wins. Illegality and ineffectiveness, that is nullity, are two different concepts.

2 The gaming section does not prohibit the loser settling his losses but he cannot be compelled to pay his losses.

3 Under the gaming section our courts are not allowed to collect gambling debts for casinos and junket operators. The courts will not permit a gambling debt to sneak in in disguise, eg as a loan or a sale contract for chips. The courts must take a robust stand against, and stamp on, actions brought in defiance of the gaming section: see R v Weisz, ex p Hector Macdonald [1951] 2 KB 611.

4 The use of chips or sale of chips on credit does not validate the claim. Chips are not money or money`s worth but counters for tracking the losses and the wins. They also indicate the line of credit. The scorecard merely says how much the gambler has lost. It is not evidence of a loan. It is not evidence of a contract of sale. The amount shown as owing is the amount of gambling debt. A loss cannot be disguised as a loan or sales contract to circumvent the gaming section.

5 A promise in order to be obnoxious to the second branch of the section must be a promise to pay the bet, and the prohibition relates only to recovery of money or a valuable thing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Star City Pty Ltd (fka Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Ltd) v Tan Hong Woon
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 25 Febrero 2002
    ...Poyser v Minors (1881) 7 QBD 329 (refd) Quarrier v Colston (1842) 1 Ph 147; 41 ER 587 (refd) Quek Chiau Beng v Phua Swee Pah Jimmy [2000] 3 SLR (R) 761; [2001] 1 SLR 762 (refd) Saxby v Fulton [1909] 2 KB 208 (refd) Shoesmith, In re [1938] 2 KB 637 (refd) Société Anonyme des Grands Establiss......
  • Desert Palace Inc (doing business as Caesars Palace) v Poh Soon Kiat
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 Septiembre 2008
    ...cheques themselves were worthless. A wolf in lamb`s clothing at all times remains a wolf. 27 In Quek Chiau Beng v Phua Swee Pah Jimmy [2001] 1 SLR 762, where a junket operator sued a gambler for monies which arose from losses at the Crown Casino, Selvam J held at A loss cannot be disguised ......
  • Ling Yew Kong v Teo Vin Li Richard
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 Enero 2014
    ...3 SLR (R) 8; [2003] 3 SLR 8 (refd) Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc [2010] 1 SLR 1129 (refd) Quek Chiau Beng v Phua Swee Pah Jimmy [2000] 3 SLR (R) 761; [2001] 1 SLR 762 (refd) Real Estate Consortium Pte Ltd v East Coast Properties Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 758 (folld) Shunmugam Jayakumar v Jey......
  • Desert Palace Inc (doing business as Caesars Palace) v Poh Soon Kiat
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 Septiembre 2008
    ...cheques themselves were worthless. A wolf in lamb`s clothing at all times remains a wolf. 27 In Quek Chiau Beng v Phua Swee Pah Jimmy [2001] 1 SLR 762, where a junket operator sued a gambler for monies which arose from losses at the Crown Casino, Selvam J held at A loss cannot be disguised ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2001, December 2001
    • 1 Diciembre 2001
    ...full outstanding sum. 9.78 Insofar as gaming contracts are concerned, the High Court decision of Quek Chiau Beng v Phua Swee Pah Jimmy[2001] 1 SLR 762 has, in fact, already been considered in last year”s review (see (2000) SAL Ann Rev 95 at 114), and the reader is referred to the discussion......
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 Diciembre 2000
    ...why such a merger should be effected in what is an already unsettled area of the law. In Quek Chiau Beng v Phua Swee Pah Jimmy, [2001] 1 SLR 762, GP Selvam J reiterated the very strict approach he laid down in two previous cases with regard to gaming and wagering contracts under what is now......
  • VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — SOME KEY CONCEPTS AND DEVELOPMENTS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 Diciembre 2005
    ...as the UK is concerned, for example, see Phang, supra n 290. 292 Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed. And see eg, Quek Chiau Beng v Phua Swee Pah Jimmy[2001] 1 SLR 762 (noted by Phang, “Contract Law”, supra n 102, at 114). 293 See eg, the Singapore decision of Las Vegas Hilton Corp v Khoo Teng Hock Sunny[1......

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