Court found that loan agreements for gambling purposes made in Macau were legally enforceable, dismissing claims of illegality under Malaysian law.

[1] This is the Defendant's application in encl 8 to stay or strike out the Plaintiff's claim, under O 12 r 10(1), (2) and (7), O 18 r 19 (1) (b) or (d) and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 ('ROC').

[2] On 6 December 2016, this Court dismissed the application and the reasons now follow.

The Statement Of Claim

[3] The Plaintiff, Wynn Resorts (Macau) SA is a company incorporated in Macau Special Administrative Region and the Defendant was and is at all material time, a Malaysian citizen and believed to have three (3) residential addresses in Jalan Sri Hartamas Kuala Lumpur, Bukit Damansara Kuala Lumpur and Ara Damansara, Petaling Jaya Selangor.

[4] It is stated that at the Defendant's request and by signing three Credit Documents, the Plaintiff agreed to offer a total loan for an amount of HKD20,000,000.00 to the Defendant and the Loan Agreements are subjected to and governed under the laws in Macau. The Credit Documents are as follows:

i. a Credit Agreement dated 10 May 2013 for HKD10,000,000.00;

ii. a Credit Line Increase Request dated 23 May 2014; and

iii. a Credit Line Increase Request dated 24 May 2014 for another HKD10,000,000.00

[5] The loan sum was given to the Defendant on or about 23 May 2014 and 24 May 2014.

[6] In consideration for the loan sum granted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is stated to have executed a Promissory Note No 0020334 which is subject to and governed under the laws in Macau with the other details left in blank to guarantee his repayment of the loan sum back to the Plaintiff and also signed on 6 credit instruments commonly known as 'Markers' in favour of the Plaintiff.

[7] The Defendant is stated to have had a credit balance of HKD815,640.00 in his account with the Plaintiff (being the commission sum of HKD515,640.00 given by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and the front money in the amount of HKD300,000.00. ('Monies'). The sum claimed is due and payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the loan sum (after the deduction of the Monies) as at 24 May 2014 is HKD19,184,360.00 ('sum due and owing').

[8] The Plaintiff had instructed its solicitors in Hong Kong to issue a letter of demand dated 20 April 2015 to the Defendant demanding for the repayment of the sum due and owing. As no payment was made the Plaintiff then instructed its solicitors in Malaysia, Messrs Jeff Leong, Poon & Wong to issue a letter of demand dated 30 June 2015 to the Defendant at his residential addresses and business addresses to demand for the repayment of the sum due and owing.

[9] The Defendant is stated to have failed, refused and or neglected to make the payment for the sum due and owing to the Plaintiff. Hence, the present suit is filed before this Court. The Plaintiff inter alia claims for the following from the Defendant:

(a) The sum due and owing of HKD19,184,360.00 (equivalent to RM10,078,637.81 based on the exchange rate of HKD100.00 to RM52,5357) as at 20 May 2016;

(b) Interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum due and owing of HKD19,184,360.00 (equivalent to RM10,078,637.81 based on the exchange rate of HKD100.00 to RM52.5357 as at 20 May 2016) from 24 May 2014 until the date of full and final settlement of the sum due and owing by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

Defendant's Contention

[10] The key issue of contention by the Defendant is that the Plaintiff's claim is for money won by the Plaintiff as a result of gambling activities at the Plaintiff'