A loan provided for gambling purposes is distinguishable from a gambling debt and is enforceable under contractual obligations despite statutory prohibitions against wagering.

[1] In this action, the plaintiff seeks to recover a debt in the sum of Hong Kong Dollars ("HK$") 33,186,554.00 ("the debt") which is said to be due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff. The debt is undoubtedly "linked" to or "associated" with "gambling activity" but I am reluctant to describe it as a "gambling debt" as the term gambling debt appears to have various legal connotations and imputations as may be seen from the various cases which will be adverted to in this judgment. The plaintiff is a. casino operator in Macau. They are a licensed gaming concessionaire under Macau's Law No 5/2004. The plaintiff's concessionaire status was given judicial recognition by the Hong Kong High Court in Wynn Resorts (Macau) SA v. Mong Henry [2010] HKEC 227 at p 2 para 14. In a similar case, namely, Wynn Resorts (Macau) SA v. Wang Yen Liang, (" Wynn v. Wang"), the Kuala Lumpur High Court (per Noorin J) at paragraph [55] also recognized that the plaintiff is a duly licensed gambling outlet operating in Macau. I should. add that in that case the punter had applied to strike out the suit. However, the learned Judge dismissed the punter's application. The defendant is a Malaysian citizen and IS ordinarily resident in Malaysia. He is gainfully employed m Malaysia. The defendant is a "seasoned gambler". Since 2007, he has been a regular patron at the plaintiff's casino in Macau. He is regarded as a "high stakes" customer of the plaintiff's casino. The defendant has also gambled at various casinos throughout the world.

[2] The plaintiff offers credit facilities to patrons with a sound credit rating. The credit facility is solely to enable the patrons to gamble on credit at the plaintiff's casino. It is obvious that the defendant had a formidable credit reputation and was by all accounts, credit worthy. Hence, during many of his visits to the plaintiff's casino, the defendant was able to obtain substantial gaming credit facilities to gamble at the casino. The defendant never protested nor raised any issue with regard to the validity or legality of the credit facility that was granted by the plaintiff. Hitherto, the defendant has repaid the debt(s) which were due and owing to the plaintiff pursuant to the gaming credit facilities which were granted.

[3] The plaintiff's claim in the present action arises out of the defendant's gambling stint at the plaintiff's casino on 22 May 2014. On that fateful day, the defendant visited the plaintiff's casino. He sought and was given a gaming credit facility of up to HK$40,000,000.00 ("HK$40 million"). There is no dispute that this credit facility (as in the past) was given to enable the defendant to gamble at the casino. Pursuant to. the credit facility the defendant was given "gaming chips" worth HK$40 million. The gaming chips are only useable within the plaintiff's casino and that too at the gaming tables only. The gaming chips cannot be used to purchase meals or drinks or to pay for hotel accommodation.

[4] The defendant used the gaming chips and played the card game, "Baccarat". However, things did not go well for the defendant. It was in fact an abysmal day for the defendant as he lost badly at the gambling table. The defendant made partial repayment of the amounts that were outstanding under the credit facility. The balance sum payable by the. defendant. is HK$33, 186,554.00. The claim against the defendant in the present action is for the sum of HK$33,186,554.00 with interest thereon at 18% per annum from 22 May 2014, until the date of full payment or realization and cost.

[5] The defendant 1s strenuously resisting the claim. The defendant's resistance is predicated on his contention that the plaintiff's claim which is ostensibly to recover an amount outstanding under a gaming credit facility is nothing more than a "gambling debt" which is not recoverable in Malaysia. The defendant relies on s 26(1) and (2) of the Civil Law Act 1956 and s 31(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 and contends that these s