Appeals court: Foreign judgment valid here only if it is to claim money
By Carolyn Quek 09 December 2009
A Singaporean businessman who blew US$2 million (S$2.8 million) in a Las Vegas casino and came home without paying up will not have to do so - just yet.
The Court of Appeal yesterday overturned an earlier ruling by the High Court which allowed the casino to enforce a California court judgment against Mr. Poh Soon Kiat.
Mr. Poh, who is in his 50s, had gambled the money away at the Caesars Palace casino over six years from 1992. Due to long delays in payment, his debt ballooned to US$4.4 million.
Yesterday’s judgment by Singapore’s highest court, though, did not set a precedent on whether overseas courts’ orders involving gambling debts could be enforced here or not.
The appeal judges - Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and V.K. Rajah - overruled the earlier decision based on one point.
The appeals court’s stand was that a foreign judgment could be enforced here only if it was to claim a sum of money.
Instead, Caesars Palace’s request before the Singapore courts was to enforce a foreign court’s order to stop a fraudulent transfer of Mr. Goh’s share in a property.
In 2001, the casino operators found that Mr. Poh had tried to transfer his share in a Californian property to a British Virgin Island company.
The casino operators went to a court in California to stop the transfer on the grounds that it was a fraudulent transfer under the law in that state.
California allowed this and also said Mr. Poh’s property was to be sold and the proceeds given to Caesars. Mr. Poh also remained liable for the shortfall.
But the Court of Appeal said the California judgment was not enforceable here because it was not based on a claim of a sum of money.
The appeal court’s judgment went on to discuss two other key issues which had arisen from the case.
The first point they quickly settled on was that such foreign judgments had a time frame of six years to be enforced, rather than 12 years.
The next point the judges addressed was whether gambling debts were recognised by the law here, based on the public policy on gambling.
Under the Civil Law Act, a foreign judgment cannot be enforced if it goes against matters of public policy.
On this principle, the courts had taken the stand that gambling debts, even if incurred overseas, could not be recovered through lawsuits here.
But in 2004, the Court of Appeal ruled that an agreement among Commonwealth countries meant that such debts could be recovered if they were incurred in these countries.
In Mr. Poh’s case, the High Court had said this should apply to all casino operators, even those from non-Commonwealth countries.
The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed, saying that the public policy encapsulated by the Civil Law Act should be the overriding factor.
It also discussed the implications of gambling to Singapore’s public policy, even with the strict regulatory framework over casino operations here.
‘Controlled casino gambling may not be contrary to the legal policy of Singapore and also the public policy of this control... but gambling in general, especially unregulated gambling at large and gambling on credit, is, in our view, contrary to Singapore’s public policy,’ the judges said.
The court pointed to two surveys by the National Council on Problem Gambling which showed that a large majority of Singaporeans were of the view that uncontrolled gambling would create serious social problems for gamblers and their families.
However, the appeal judges noted that they did not want to make a ‘conclusive opinion’ on this issue.
‘It should (in our view) be determined only after it has been fully canvassed in future proceedings involving foreign judgments based on gambling debts.’
1 comment:
Las Vegas casino case: Ruling overturned
Appeals court: Foreign judgment valid here only if it is to claim money
By Carolyn Quek
09 December 2009
A Singaporean businessman who blew US$2 million (S$2.8 million) in a Las Vegas casino and came home without paying up will not have to do so - just yet.
The Court of Appeal yesterday overturned an earlier ruling by the High Court which allowed the casino to enforce a California court judgment against Mr. Poh Soon Kiat.
Mr. Poh, who is in his 50s, had gambled the money away at the Caesars Palace casino over six years from 1992. Due to long delays in payment, his debt ballooned to US$4.4 million.
Yesterday’s judgment by Singapore’s highest court, though, did not set a precedent on whether overseas courts’ orders involving gambling debts could be enforced here or not.
The appeal judges - Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and V.K. Rajah - overruled the earlier decision based on one point.
The appeals court’s stand was that a foreign judgment could be enforced here only if it was to claim a sum of money.
Instead, Caesars Palace’s request before the Singapore courts was to enforce a foreign court’s order to stop a fraudulent transfer of Mr. Goh’s share in a property.
In 2001, the casino operators found that Mr. Poh had tried to transfer his share in a Californian property to a British Virgin Island company.
The casino operators went to a court in California to stop the transfer on the grounds that it was a fraudulent transfer under the law in that state.
California allowed this and also said Mr. Poh’s property was to be sold and the proceeds given to Caesars. Mr. Poh also remained liable for the shortfall.
But the Court of Appeal said the California judgment was not enforceable here because it was not based on a claim of a sum of money.
The appeal court’s judgment went on to discuss two other key issues which had arisen from the case.
The first point they quickly settled on was that such foreign judgments had a time frame of six years to be enforced, rather than 12 years.
The next point the judges addressed was whether gambling debts were recognised by the law here, based on the public policy on gambling.
Under the Civil Law Act, a foreign judgment cannot be enforced if it goes against matters of public policy.
On this principle, the courts had taken the stand that gambling debts, even if incurred overseas, could not be recovered through lawsuits here.
But in 2004, the Court of Appeal ruled that an agreement among Commonwealth countries meant that such debts could be recovered if they were incurred in these countries.
In Mr. Poh’s case, the High Court had said this should apply to all casino operators, even those from non-Commonwealth countries.
The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed, saying that the public policy encapsulated by the Civil Law Act should be the overriding factor.
It also discussed the implications of gambling to Singapore’s public policy, even with the strict regulatory framework over casino operations here.
‘Controlled casino gambling may not be contrary to the legal policy of Singapore and also the public policy of this control... but gambling in general, especially unregulated gambling at large and gambling on credit, is, in our view, contrary to Singapore’s public policy,’ the judges said.
The court pointed to two surveys by the National Council on Problem Gambling which showed that a large majority of Singaporeans were of the view that uncontrolled gambling would create serious social problems for gamblers and their families.
However, the appeal judges noted that they did not want to make a ‘conclusive opinion’ on this issue.
‘It should (in our view) be determined only after it has been fully canvassed in future proceedings involving foreign judgments based on gambling debts.’
Post a Comment