The court upheld the validity of Singapore judgments related to gambling debts, ruling they do not contravene Malaysian public policy under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J:

Introduction

[1] This is the Judgment Debtor's (JD) application to set aside the Orders for Registration dated 25 April 2019 and 6 May 2019 (Orders for Registration) in respect of the judgment of the High Court of Singapore dated 28 February 2019 and 28 December 2018 (Singapore judgments).

[2] After the hearing, I dismissed the JD's application (Enclosure 25). This judgment will contain the full reasons for the dismissal.

[3] The relevant cause papers before this Court are as follows:

Originating Summons No WA-24-10-04/2019

Registration of Foreign Judgment

(a) Originating Summons (Ex Parte) dated 9 April 2019;

(b) Affidavit in Support of Application to Register Foreign Judgment of Nur Syafinaz Vani binti Abdullah dated 8 April 2019;?

(c) Affidavit of Shankar s/o Angammah Sevasamy dated 20 March 2019;

(d) Order for Registration dated 25 April 2019;

(e) Notice to Judgment Debtor of Registration of Foreign Judgment dated 29 May 2019 (Notice to JD of Registration);

Judgment Debtor's Application to Set Aside the Order for Registration

(f) Notice of Application dated 26 December 2019 (JD's Setting Aside Application);

(g) Affidavit in Support affirmed by Andrew Kam Tai Yeow on 26 December 2019 (JD's Affidavit in Support);

(h) Judgment Creditor's (JC) 1st Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Tan Yong Yong on 9 January 2020 (JC's 1st Affidavit in Reply);

(i) JD's Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Andrew Kam Tai Yeow on 18 February 2020 (JD's Affidavit in Reply); and

(j) JC's 2nd Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Tan Yong Yong on 10 March 2020 (JC's 2nd Affidavit in Reply);

Originating Summons No WA-24-11-04/2019

Registration of Foreign Judgment

a) Originating Summons (Ex Parte) dated 9 April 2019;

b) Affidavit in Support of Application to Register Foreign Judgment of Nur Syafinaz Vani binti Abdullah dated 8 April 2019;

c) Affidavit of Shankar s/o Angammah Sevasamy dated 20 March 2019;

d) Order for Registration dated 6 May 2019;

e) Notice to Judgment Debtor of Registration of Foreign Judgment dated 2 July 2019 (Notice to JD of Registration);

Judgment Debtor's Application to Set Aside the Order for Registration

(f) Notice of Application dated 26 December 2019 (JD's Setting Aside Application);

(g) Affidavit in Support affirmed by Andrew Kam Tai Yeow on 26 December 2019 (JD's Affidavit in Support);

(h) JC's 1st Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Tan Yong Yong on 7 January 2020 (JC's 1st Affidavit in Reply);

(i) JD's Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Andrew Kam Tai Yeow on 3 March 2020 (JD's Affidavit in Reply); and

(j) JC's 2nd Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Tan Yong Yong on 10 March 2020 (JC's 2nd Affidavit in Reply);

Brief Facts

[4] The JC is a licensed casino operator in the Republic of Singapore and the JD is a Malaysian citizen and a businessman in Malaysia.

[5] The facts surrounding these applications to set aside registration of foreign judgment arose from the same transaction, ie a gambling debt incurred by the JD in the casino operated by the JC.

[6] It is undisputed by the parties herein that the subject matter of the Singapore Judgment is a gambling debt and the costs order awarded was premised on the judgment.

[7] The application is made according to s 5(1)(a)(v) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Act 1958 (REJA).

The Submission By The Judgment Debtor

[8] The main contention of the JD is that the enforcement of the Singapore judgments and Orders for Registration is against the public policy in Malaysia.

[9] It was submitted that the JC is prohibited under Malaysian law to register a foreign judgment obtained for an action to recover debt under a gambling contract. Section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956 and s 31 of the Contracts Act 1950 were quoted to support the JD's contention.

[10] The JD also inter alia, relied on the High Court case of Jupiters Ltd (trading as Conrad International Treasury Casino) v. Gan Kok Beng & Anor, which held that foreign cause of action which accrues from a gambling debt is a matter which is contrary to public policy a