Eusoff Chin J

On 8 March 1989, the plaintiff, a licensed gambling casino, obtained in the High Court of England a judgment against the defendant in the sum of £512,136.48, and costs of £196 which respectively in Malaysian ringgit, as on 8 March 1989, came to $2,428,807.26 and $929.53.

The plaintiff applied to the High Court in Kuala Lumpur to have the judgment registered under s 4 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (Rev 1972). On 21 November 1989 the learned senior assistant registrar of the High Court granted the application.

The defendant's application to set aside the learned senior assistant registrar's order was dismissed on 8 March 1990. The defendant appealed to the judge-in-chambers.

The defendant in his affidavit said that the money owed was what he had lost at the gaming tables and had issued cheques to the plaintiff. This was denied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff said that a person had to use gaming chips to gamble in its premises. The procedure was that a person intending to gamble at the plaintiff's premises had to purchase chips from the plaintiff's employees. It is not the case that a person would be given gaming chips to engage in any gaming, and that if he lost, he would issue cheques for the amount lost. In this case the defendant had gone to the plaintiff's licensed gaming premises to gamble. He had issued cheques to one of the plaintiff's employees to obtain cash and gaming chips up to the amount of the cheques. He had then stopped payment on the cheques. The defendant had then settled part of his debts to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant in the English court, and obtained the judgment.

Before me, SK Sivam for the defendant argued that the cheques were given for illegal consideration, or alternatively, that the judgment was for gambling debt, and should not be enforced as it is against the public policy of this country, and that the contract was in contravention of some essential principles of justice or morality. Sections 24 and 31 of the Contracts Act 1950, s 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956, and s 5 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 were cited.

Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950 states:

The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless —

(a) it is forbidden by a law;

(b) it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat any law;

(c) it is fraudulent;

(d) it involves or implies injury to the person or property or another; or

(e) the court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.

In each of the above cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.

Section 31 of the Contracts Act 1950 states:

(1) Agreements by way of wager are void; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or other uncertain event on which any wager is made.

(2) This section shall not be deemed to render unlawful a subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, made or entered into for or toward any plate, prize, or sum of money, of the value or amount of five hundred dollars or upwards, to be awarded to the winner or winners of any horse-race.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to legalise any transaction connected with horse-racing forbidden by any written law.

Section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956 states:

Agreement by way of gaming or wagering to be null and void.

(1) All contracts or agreements whether by parol or in writing by way of gaming or wagering shall be null and void.

(2) No action shall be brought or maintained in any Court for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager or which has been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager has been made.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not be deemed to apply to any subscription or contributions, or