Back
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
NORDIN HASSAN, FCJ
DATO TING CHING LEE – Appellant
Versus
TING SIU HUA – Respondent
Question 1? What is the enforceability of gambling debt under Malaysian law, considering sections 24, 31 Contracts Act 1950 and section 26 Civil Law Act 1956? Question 2? What determines whether a credit facility linked to gambling is a gaming/wagering contract or a separate loan, and its impact on enforceability? Question 3? What is the public policy stance on gambling contracts and how does it affect recovery of gambling debts?
Key Points: - The law holds that gambling contracts are void and do not support enforcement of gambling debts under Contracts Act 1950 s24, s31 and Civil Law Act 1956 s26. (!) (!) (!) - The Court analyzed whether credit facilities granted to gamble at Naga Casino constitute gaming/wagering contracts or genuine loans, concluding they are part of gaming transactions or a composite gambling contract. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The High Court and Court of Appeal decisions centered on public policy against gambling and the reality of the transaction, not merely labels like "loan." (!) (!) (!) (!) - The decision references Wynn Resorts and Star City Singapore judgments and ultimately distinguishes Wynn Resorts as not controlling, upholding Malaysian public policy against gambling debts. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The STG Agreement and related credit facilities were found to facilitate gaming using Naga Casino chips, reinforcing that such credits are integral to gambling transactions. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court reaffirmed that enforcing gambling debts would contravene public policy and that such debts are unenforceable ab initio. (!) (!) - The appeal resulted in restoring the High Court’s dismissal of defamation claims and upholding the unenforceability of the gambling-debt counterclaim. (!) (!)
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by Dato Ting Ching Lee, the appellant, against the Court of Appeal's decision to allow the respondent, Ting Siu Hua's counterclaim.
The appellant was the 1st plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant at the High Court. The respondent's counterclaim was for the recovery of monies for two lines of credit totaling USD1.5 million and the advance of rolling rebate for USD193,800.00 for gambling at Naga Casino, Cambodia.
[2] The pertinent and interesting legal issues in the present appeal concern the Malaysian's position on recovering monies related to gambling or wagering and the application of s 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956 , and ss 24 and 31 of the Contracts Act 1950 . Further, whether the present facts of the case, trigger the application of the said sections in light of the decision by the High Court in Wynn Resorts (Macau) S A v. Poh Yang Hong 2019 MarsdenLR 821 affirmed by the Court of Appeal and the application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed.
[3] On 6 August 2024, the appellant's application for leave to appeal to this Court was granted on one question of law which is as follows:
"In construing whe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
