This content is from: Local Insights

Singapore

Section 6 of Singapore's Civil Law Act nullifies gaming contracts and prohibits the recovery of any wagering prize. It remains unclear as to whether a swap agreement is a gaming contact within the meaning of the Act and hence invalid under Singapore law.

However, a recently reported High Court decision may lend support to the argument that, if a swap agreement is made in a foreign jurisdiction and is governed by and valid under a foreign jurisdiction's law, such an agreement can be enforced in Singapore. In Las Vegas Hilton Corporation t/a Las Vegas Hilton v Khoo Teng Hock Sunny [1997] 1 SLR 341, the plaintiff, a casino licensed under the laws of Nevada, sued the defendant in Singapore to recover monies which had been loaned to the defendant to enable the defendant to gamble at the plaintiff's casino in Las Vegas.

The Court found that the loan agreement was governed by and enforceable under Nevada law. If the agreement had been governed by Singapore law, it could be invalid or void by virtue of the Civil Law Act. However, the Court took the view that this did not mean that the agreement, which was governed by and enforceable under Nevada law, could not be enforced in Singapore.

The Court held that it was not against Singapore's public policy to allow the plaintiff to recover the loans given to the defendant to gamble legally in Las Vegas and allowed the plaintiff's claim.

Instant access to all of our content. Membership Options | One Week Trial