Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QSC
  3. 2024
  4. The Star Entertainment Qld Ltd v Wong - [2024] QSC 204

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

The Star Entertainment Qld Ltd v Wong[2024] QSC 204

The Star Entertainment Qld Ltd v Wong[2024] QSC 204

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v Wong [2024] QSC 204 

PARTIES:

THE STAR ENTERTAINMENT QLD LIMITED

(plaintiff)

v

YEW CHOY WONG

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 1909 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 September 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

27, 28 and 30 August 2024

JUDGE:

Hindman J

ORDER:

  1. 1.Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $38,659,853.22 plus interest and indemnity costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS – where the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a cheque cashing facility to permit the defendant to obtain gaming chips on credit in exchange for counter cheques – where the defendant had previously provided a blank cheque to a related company in support of an earlier and different cheque cashing facility at another casino and that cheque had not been returned to the defendant – where the plaintiff obtained, completed and presented the blank cheque in purported settlement of the defendant’s gambling losses – where the presented cheque was dishonoured – where the counter cheques were never presented – whether in the circumstances the plaintiff has a claim for the recovery of the cheque cashing facility monies as loans – whether the defendant has proved to the requisite standard an alleged agreement with the plaintiff that may be a defence to the plaintiff’s claim

Cheques Act 1986 (Cth) s. 71

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) ss. 58, 59

Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al-Zayat [2007] EWCA Civ 1001 (CA), cited

Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Hui [2023] EWHC 2036 (KB), considered

Cohen v Hale (1878) 3 QBD 371, cited

Crockfords Club Ltd v Mehta [1992] 1 WLR 355, cited

Elliott v Crutchley [1903] 2 KB 476, cited

Newham v Diamond Leisure Pty Ltd (1994) 4 NTLR 111, considered

Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd v Al Daher [2014] EWHC 2847 (QB), cited

COUNSEL:

D O’Sullivan KC with F Lubett and M Windsor, for the plaintiff

C A Johnstone with N J Derrington, for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

King & Wood Mallesons for the plaintiff

Russells Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Pursuant to a special junket agreement,[1] the defendant (Dr Wong) attended at the plaintiff’s casino from 26 July 2018 to 2 August 2018, gamed at baccarat, and incurred net gaming losses of $47,300,000.[2]  After certain rebates and other allowances under the special junket agreement were taken into account, the net losses reduced to $43,209,853.22.
  2. [2]
    The plaintiff (The Star GC) brings action to recover from Dr Wong those losses, but further reduced by an amount of $4,550,000, for reasons not presently material.[3]  Thus the sum sought by The Star GC from Dr Wong is $38,659,853.22 plus interest and costs. 
  3. [3]
    The Star GC’s claim is brought on four alternative bases:
    1. a claim for an indemnity pursuant to clause 6 of the Cheque Cashing Facility Agreement between the parties dated 26 July 2018 (CCF) or damages pursuant to clause 7 of the CCF;[4]
    2. a claim for statutory compensation pursuant to section 71 of the Cheques Act 1986 (Cth);[5]
    3. a claim for the recovery of the CCF monies as loans;[6]
    4. a claim in restitution.[7]
  4. [4]
    Dr Wong pleads reasons in his defence why each of those claims should fail.  There is also a defence pleaded by Dr Wong that, if made out, may be sufficient to defeat all of the claims – that defence concerns an alleged agreement between The Star GC and Dr Wong.[8] 
  5. [5]
    In the result, for the purposes of deciding The Star GC’s claim it is only necessary for me to consider in any detail: 
    1. the claim for the recovery of the CCF monies as loans;[9] and
    2. Dr Wong’s alleged agreement defence,

in order to conclude that The Star GC is entitled to the judgment sum it seeks.  Although the other causes of action pleaded by The Star GC contain interesting and disputed issues of substance, The Star GC’s success on the loan claim means it is unnecessary for me to express an opinion about any of the other alternate causes of action and I do not do so. 

  1. [6]
    The Star GC has made out its claim for recovery of the CCF monies as loans, and Dr Wong has not made out any pleaded defence to that claim.  I will enter judgment for The Star GC, with interest and costs. 

Relevant background facts to the loan claim (excluding reference to the alleged agreement)

  1. [7]
    Dr Wong is a citizen of Singapore.  He was invited to The Star GC’s casino on the Gold Coast known as The Star Gold Coast.  He attended at the casino between 26 July 2018 and 2 August 2018.
  2. [8]
    Over a year prior, in May 2017, Dr Wong had attended at The Star Sydney, a casino operated by a company related to The Star GC.  In order to secure gaming chips on credit at The Star Sydney (through a cheque cashing facility), Dr Wong had provided to The Star Sydney a signed blank personal cheque numbered 707983 issued against his bank account held with the financial institution Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited (OCBC).[10]  That is a common process within casinos.  Dr Wong’s cheque 707983 was left with The Star Sydney after the completion of that trip and was placed in a safety deposit box held by that casino.  No use by The Star Sydney of cheque 707983 was required on that trip as Dr Wong settled his gambling losses on that occasion by way of a bank deposit.  
  3. [9]
    Dr Wong accepts that when he arrived at The Star GC’s casino on 26 July 2018, he signed certain documents to secure gaming chips on credit and to permit his friend and a facilitator of the trip, Mr Chan, to act on his behalf in relation to certain money matters concerning the casino. 
  4. [10]
    The documents comprised initially: 
    1. the CCF (see [[3](a))] above) for the sum of $40 million;[11]
    2. a third-party authority form authorising Mr Chan to operate that facility on Dr Wong’s behalf.[12]
  5. [11]
    Dr Wong accepts that on 26 July 2018, Mr Chan signed a counter cheque for $40 million on his behalf (the first counter cheque) and gave it to The Star GC for the purposes of the CCF.[13]
  6. [12]
    On 28 July 2018, Dr Wong signed a request for cheque limit increase of $10 million[14] on the CCF and another third-party authority form.[15]
  7. [13]
    Dr Wong accepts that on 28 July 2018, Mr Chan signed a further counter cheque for $10 million on his behalf (the second counter cheque) and gave it to The Star GC for the purposes of the CCF.[16]
  8. [14]
    On those respective dates, $40 million and $10 million were credited into Dr Wong’s front money account with the casino,[17] transferred into Mr Chan’s front money account with the casino,[18] and thereafter used to acquire gaming chips[19] for use by Dr Wong.
  9. [15]
    By the time Dr Wong finished gaming in the early morning hours of 31 July 2018, Dr Wong had accrued net gambling losses to the casino totalling $47,300,000.  After certain rebates and other allowances under the special junket agreement, the losses were reduced to $43,209,853.22.
  10. [16]
    Dr Wong left the country without settling his account with the casino.  That is not unusual. 
  11. [17]
    In purported settlement of Dr Wong’s account, The Star GC then took the following steps:
    1. having calculated that the net loss to be settled was $43,209,853.22, to ensure that the counter cheques held by the casino matched the amount to be settled, a third counter cheque (unsigned) was created (cheque 7617) for $3,209,853.22[20] to replace the second counter cheque;
    2. The Star GC asked The Star Sydney to deliver to it cheque 707983 referred to at [[8]] above (which was then received);
    3. The Star GC completed cheque 707983 by inserting the date of 7 September 2018, itself as the payee, and an amount in Singapore dollars equivalent to $43,209,853.22.[21]  The Star GC considered completed cheque 707983 to be in substitution for the first and third counter cheques (totalling the same amount);
    4. The Star GC presented cheque 707983 for payment;
    5. None of the counter cheques were ever presented for payment by The Star GC.  
  12. [18]
    Cheque 707983 was dishonoured.[22]  Any cheque presented for payment to The Star GC with Dr Wong as the drawer would have been dishonoured (for example, the counter cheques).  That is because Dr Wong says, and I accept, that he instructed his bank on 3 August 2018 that any cheque purporting to draw on his account in favour of The Star GC was not to be honoured.[23]
  13. [19]
    The Star GC made written demands on Dr Wong for the amount of AUD$43,209,853.22 on 16 October 2018 and 21 December 2018.[24]  That amount has not been paid.  

The alleged agreement

  1. [20]
    As identified at [4] above, there is a pleaded reason common to each of the causes of action relied upon by The Star GC, upon which Dr Wong relies to defend the plaintiff’s claim – concerning an alleged agreement between The Star GC and Dr Wong.[25]
  2. [21]
    Dr Wong pleads in [10] of the defence that no sum of money is owed by him to The Star GC for the following reasons.  The alleged agreement is specifically pleaded at (a)(iv) below. 
  1. (a)
     
  1. (i)
    …
  2. (ii)
    there was no sum outstanding under the Facility as alleged;
  3. (iii)
    rather, between 26 July and 30 July 2018: -
  1. (A)
    the defendant had played baccarat at the Star Gold Coast;
  2. (B)
    the defendant had verbally objected to the practices of the plaintiff’s baccarat dealers who dealt cards to the defendant;
  3. (C)
    the defendant had ceased gaming;
  4. (D)
    having ceased gaming, the plaintiff, by its President (International Marketing), one Marcus Lim Yi, had verbally offered a rebate of $4.5m to the defendant on condition that the defendant would continue gambling;

Particulars

The verbal offer was made in a conversation which occurred in the evening or night of 29 July 2018 in the defendant’s private salon at The Star, in person between the defendant and Marcus Lim Yi on behalf of the plaintiff in the presence of Ms Yaw Fang Ying in which Marcus Lim Yi said words to the effect that he wanted the defendant to resume gaming and said that if he did so the plaintiff would give to the defendant a rebate of AUD4.5 million.

  1. (E)
    the defendant had rejected that offer and refused to continue gaming;

Particulars

During the same conversation particularised in paragraph 10(a)(iii)(D) above, the defendant said to Marcus Lim Yi that he did not want the same mistakes to happen again as they had happened too many times and that he did not accept the offer of a rebate.

  1. (F)
    the parties were in dispute as to the practices of the plaintiff’s baccarat dealers who dealt cards to the defendant;
  1. (iv)
    on or about 30 July 2018, the plaintiff, by its Chief Operating Officer, Paul Arbuckle and the defendant entered into a verbal agreement in compromise of such dispute, agreeing that:
  1. (A)
    the defendant would not have to pay for any losses incurred to that date;
  2. (B)
    the defendant would resume gaming;
  3. (C)
    if the plaintiff’s dealers made any further mistakes in dealing baccarat to the defendant, he would not be required to pay for any loses incurred thereafter on that visit; and

Particulars

The agreement was made during the night of 30 July 2018.

The substance and effect of the words said by the defendant and Mr Arbuckle are set out in paragraphs 27 to 31 of the Fifth Affidavit of Wong Yew Choy affirmed on 21 June 2019 which affidavit has been filed and served in proceeding SIC/S 3/2019 HC/SUM 2109/2019 in the Singapore International Commercial Court and disclosed by the plaintiff in this proceeding.

  1. (b)
    says further that by its letter to the defendant dated 1 August 2018, the plaintiff admitted the mistakes referred to in subparagraph 10(a)(iii) and the agreement referred to in subparagraph 10(a)(iv) hereof.
  1. [22]
    In respect of that pleaded defence it can be noted that in general terms the parties agree:
    1. Dr Wong played baccarat whilst at the casino;
    2. there were at least four incidents resulting in complaint by Dr Wong about the practices of the relevant baccarat dealers;
    3. the casino agrees that Dr Wong had proper reason to complain in respect of three incidents;
    4. in respect of two of those incidents, Dr Wong was given discretionary payments at the time (credits of $100,000 and $500,000[26]);
    5. in respect of the other two incidents there was no potential for an adverse monetary outcome for Dr Wong on those particular hands;
    6. Dr Wong did stop gaming because of the incidents, and he did resume gaming;
    7. there was a conversation between Dr Wong and Mr Arbuckle (COO[27] of The Star GC) following some of the incidents on 30 July 2018;
    8. later there was a letter of apology dated 1 August 2018 given by Mr Arbuckle to Dr Wong in respect of the incidents[28] which provided (in final, signed form):

Dear Dr Wong

I wish to extend to you my sincere apologies regarding difficulties you have experienced during your visit to our property.

When I met with you on Monday evening to discuss your concerns, I guaranteed that no further mistakes would be made. I can confirm that following our discussion, steps were taken to reinforce with our team including gaming management the importance in ensuring that particular care is taken to ensure that your gaming preferences are followed. It is regrettable that despite this, during a free hand a dealer mistakenly moved the player cards in your direction before then retracting them and completing the round. While the round was dealt in accordance with the rules of the game, we note that the player cards should not have been directed towards you as you were not playing at that time, given it was a free hand.

Although this mistake, and the others you have experienced during your visit, have had no direct financial impact to you as, where necessary, appropriate compensation was provided at the time. We recognise that these issues have caused you some distress, and have affected the enjoyment of your visit to our property. Again, you have my absolute apology that these mistakes occurred and for any distress caused.

The issues you have experienced during your visit have been the subject of a detailed review, and have been brought to the attention of The Star Entertainment Group Executive Management.

I wish to make it completely clear that issues such as those you have experienced are unacceptable to The Star, and are not representative of the standards and expectations we maintain.

I can assure you that we will learn from these mistakes, and continually strive to improve the service we provide.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Arbuckle

Chief Operating Officer

The Star Gold Coast

  1. [23]
    Mr Arbuckle in evidence (written and oral) denied making any agreement with Dr Wong in accordance with Dr Wong’s pleaded defence. 
  2. [24]
    Dr Wong’s written closing submissions provide at [14]-[18] as follows:
  1. 14.As a defence to the entire claim, the defendant pleads that on 30 July 2018 he and Star, through its Chief Operating Officer, Mr Arbuckle, made an oral agreement the terms of which were:
  1. (a)
    Dr Wong would not have to pay for any losses incurred to that date;
  2. (b)
    Dr Wong would resume gaming; and
  3. (c)
    if Star’s dealers made any further mistakes in dealing baccarat to Dr Wong, he would not be required to pay for any losses incurred thereafter on that visit.
  1. 15.The common evidence was that two conversations occurred between Mr Arbuckle, at the second of which, Mr Arbuckle delivered a letter, which was then amended to replace the word “assured” to “guarantee” in the second paragraph together with some other immaterial amendments.
  2. 16.It was also common ground that Dr Wong said the words “I will not pay a single cent”.  When and where those words were said remains in issue, as does the condition attached.  Dr Wong gave evidence that he said, “If you make one further mistake, I won’t pay any single cent”.  Mr Arbuckle gave to evidence of two different contexts in which those words were spoken; the first being that Dr Wong would not pay a single cent “unless I changed that letter”; and the second being that Dr Wong was talking about “hands on which the errors had occurred”.
  3. 17.It ought be accepted by the Court that Dr Wong believed that the effect of the agreement he had reached with Mr Arbuckle was to the effect about which he gave evidence that he said “If you want me to pay – if you want me to pay, you must guarantee that no more mistake. If you got any mistake, I won’t pay a single cent” to which he believed Mr Arbuckle said “yes” and that the letter received thereafter confirmed this agreement. 
  4. 18.However, it is accepted that the existence of such a belief does not prove an agreement.  It is also accepted that the conversation about which Dr Wong gave evidence is not consistent with his pleaded and particularised defence.
  1. [25]
    Brief closing submissions to the same effect were made on behalf of Dr Wong by the defendant’s counsel orally.   
  2. [26]
    Insofar as Dr Wong, the only witness for the plaintiff, gave evidence, his counsel candidly conceded during closing submissions that the oral evidence of Dr Wong did not prove the defence pleaded (in [10(a)(iv)] of the defence), and so that defence must fail.[29]  I agree.  The alleged agreement pleaded by Dr Wong is materially different to the evidence Dr Wong gave orally at trial.[30]  The alleged agreement pleaded by Dr Wong is not evidenced by the letter of apology (see at [[22](h))] above) or otherwise supported by any other evidence adduced in the trial.     
  3. [27]
    Counsel for Dr Wong was pressed by me during his closing submissions as to whether Dr Wong wished to make an application to amend the defence to plead a different agreement, but no application to amend the defence was made.[31] 
  4. [28]
    Courts decide the issues put before them by the parties.  It is not for the Court to decide an unpleaded defence, particularly one that a defendant has been expressly invited to seek leave to plead. 
  5. [29]
    Given the matters above, I find that the pleaded defence is not supported by the evidence and therefore must be rejected as not being proved.  Given there was no application by Dr Wong to amend his defence to reflect the evidence he actually gave, there is nothing further for me to decide in that respect, and therefore no benefit to be gained from me analysing evidence actually given by Dr Wong that did not support his pleaded defence. 
  6. [30]
    I find that the defence pleaded by Dr Wong in [10] of the defence is not proved to the requisite civil standard. 

The loan claim

  1. [31]
    After hearing closing submissions from the parties, it is clear that the following principles of law are now not controversial between the parties in respect of the loan claim advanced by The Star GC.  The following principles in my view are an accurate statement of the relevant principles to be applied. 
  2. [32]
    Where A pays cash to B in exchange for a cheque, B makes an implied promise to pay if the cheque is dishonoured or stopped, and the underlying transaction is a loan.[32]
  3. [33]
    That is because there exists a rebuttable presumption that the cheque is taken by A as conditional repayment of the loan to B.[33] Until the cheque is dishonoured (or stopped) the remedy on the loan is suspended.  If the cheque is dishonoured, the remedy on the loan revives and A then has two causes of action: one on the original loan and one on the dishonoured cheque.[34] If the cheque is stopped by B before it is presented for payment, the remedy on the loan revives and A has one cause of action on the original loan.[35]
  4. [34]
    The above principles do not change when the cheques in question are what are variously referred to in the cases as “house cheques”, or “script cheques”[36] or “counter cheques” – that is, cheques that a gaming club or casino generates, which are then signed by the patron.
  5. [35]
    For example, in Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Hui [2023] EWHC 2036, Mr Hui had signed five “script cheques” in exchange for £600,000 of gaming chips, which he then lost gaming.  Because Aspinall’s needed to credit Mr Hui with commission that he had earned gaming (meaning that the full amount owed was less than the total value of the five script cheques), the club filled in a blank cheque that Mr Hui had left with the club with the amount of £589,724.  That cheque was dishonoured on presentation.  Aspinall’s brought two claims against Mr Hui: on the dishonoured cheque, and on the loans that arose when Mr Hui signed the script cheques and received gaming chips.  Mr Justice Cotter held that Aspinall’s was entitled to judgment on the cheque claim and noted that it would have also succeeded on the loans arising from the script cheques.  The facts in Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Hui are closely analogous with the present case.
  6. [36]
    Whilst the authorities referred to and footnoted so far are all English authorities, I have no hesitation in finding that those principles are equally applicable in Queensland. 
  7. [37]
    My attention was appropriately drawn by the defendant’s counsel to an Australian intermediary court of appeal decision in Newham v Diamond Leisure Pty Ltd (1994) 4 NTLR 111.  That was a case concerning where a patron gaming at a casino had obtained gaming chips in exchange for providing the casino with signed instruments (argued to be cheques) in the amount of $620,000.  Losses of $620,000 were suffered by the patron.  The patron stopped payment on the instruments when the casino presented them for payment.  Some preliminary matters are of note.  First, the Court was split on different issues.  Second, the casino did not in fact sue the patron on the loans, but on other bases identified at 114 of the decision.  Third, the primary issue for determination was whether the instruments were in fact cheques.  The decision then is only useful for identifying an example of a case where, as Mildren J concluded at 124,[37] the instruments were given as collateral security for the loans made, given by the casino for the purpose of gaming.  That is not a live issue in this case.  There is no allegation by Dr Wong that the provision of the counter cheques was in payment of the loans, as distinct from collateral security (or conditional payments to express it a different way).       
  8. [38]
    Given the above principles are now not in dispute between the parties, much of the defendant’s pleaded defence to the plaintiff’s loan claim falls away.  So much was conceded by the defendant’s counsel in closing submissions.[38]  
  9. [39]
    Applying the above principles, I find that:
    1. on or about 26 July 2018 pursuant to the CCF, The Star GC made available to Dr Wong $40 million in credit in exchange for the first counter cheque.  That transaction was a loan of $40 million and the first counter cheque operated as a conditional payment of the loan.[39]  The Star GC’s right to sue for that debt was thereby suspended;
    2. on or about 28 July 2018 pursuant to the CCF, The Star GC made available to Dr Wong a further $10 million in credit in exchange for the second counter cheque.  That transaction was a further loan of $10 million and the second counter cheque operated as a conditional payment of the loan.[40]  The Star GC’s right to sue for that debt was thereby suspended;
    3. that credit was placed into Dr Wong’s front money account with the casino and subsequently transferred to Mr Chan’s front money account with the casino;
    4. Mr Chan requested the issuing of chip purchase vouchers from his front money account that were exchanged for gaming chips that were then used by Dr Wong;
    5. on 3 August 2018, upon his arrival back in Singapore, Dr Wong instructed his bank to “stop payment on any cheques from The Star”.[41]  On that date, The Star GC’s right to sue for the debt was revived.  The quantum of the debt was $43,209,853.22.
  10. [40]
    In my view, it is no answer to The Star GC’s loan claim that the casino did not give cash to Dr Wong in exchange for the counter cheques.  The Star GC gave Dr Wong credit that permitted him to obtain and gamble gaming chips with an equivalent cash value.  That the transactions did not involve cash is not a materially distinguishing feature.       
  11. [41]
    By instructing his banker on 3 August 2018 that no cheques payable to The Star GC were to be honoured, Dr Wong relevantly stopped the cheques.  Therefore it is of no consequence to cause of action on the loans that was then re-enlivened that:
    1. the counter cheques were never presented;
    2. some other cheque (cheque 707983) was presented for payment and dishonoured.
  12. [42]
    That is because as at 3 August 2018 the counter cheques ceased to function as conditional payment of the loans and The Star GC’s right to sue on the loans re-enlivened. 
  13. [43]
    Further I note, for completeness if it be relevant, that the defendant’s counsel conceded that notice of the stopping of the cheques had been given.[42]
  14. [44]
    The Star GC is entitled to judgment on the loan claim.

Outcome

  1. [45]
    The plaintiff has made out its loan claim, and the defendant has not made out any defence to that claim.  I will enter judgment for the plaintiff with interest and costs. 
  2. [46]
    The parties are agreed, and I agree, that interest should be calculated in accordance with section 58 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld).  The plaintiff proposes to calculate interest from 27 September 2018 until the date of judgment, being 9 September 2024, a period of 2174 days at $8,819.93 per day.[43]  I am prepared to accept that calculation.[44]   
  3. [47]
    Post-judgment interest will accrue pursuant to section 59 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld).
  4. [48]
    I find that the plaintiff is entitled to its costs of the proceeding on the indemnity basis pursuant to clause 6 of the CCF.[45]  Whilst costs are always discretionary, the Court will usually act consistently with a contractual provision that governs costs as between the parties.  Clause 6 of the CCF is such a provision.  It is plain and unambiguous in its terms.  It provides:

I agree to indemnify The Star for all reasonable losses, liabilities & costs including, but not limited to reasonable legal costs incurred by the Star on a solicitor & own client basis, in relation to the enforcement of any rights under the CCF or in relation to my deposit accounts or in relation to my deposit accounts or in relation to the proceedings to recover monies owing by me to The Star as the result of a cheque being dishonoured.

  1. [49]
    Clause 6 of the CCF applies in this scenario because what the Court is here concerned with are the costs of the proceeding which are properly described as the enforcement of rights under the CCF. 

Footnotes

[1] Trial Bundle (TB) page 636.

[2] Player history audit trail at TB page 296 (totals on page 319).

[3] Explained at [7] of the plaintiff’s opening submissions. 

[4] See second further amended statement of claim filed by leave on 27 August 2024 (SOC) at [1]-[18], second further amended reply filed by leave on 27 August 2024 (Reply) at [1]-[8].  Dealt with in defence of the defendant to further amended statement of claim filed 22 April 2024 (DEF) at [1]-[18]. 

[5] See SOC at [1]-[17] and [19], Reply at [1]-[8].  Dealt with in DEF at [1]-[17] and [19]. 

[6] See SOC at [20]-[29], Reply at [10]-[16].  Dealt with in DEF at [20]-[29]. 

[7] See SOC at [30]-[40], Reply at [17]-[22].  Dealt with in DEF at [30]-[40].  

[8] See DEF at [10]. 

[9] See SOC at [20]-[29], Reply at [10]-[16].  Dealt with in DEF at [20]-[29]. 

[10] TB page 193.

[11] TB page 197.

[12] TB page 171.

[13] TB page 81.  The cheque was drawn on OCBC on an account number belonging to Dr Wong, cheque number 332100, in an equivalent amount of Singapore dollars. Foreign currency exchange slip at TB page 108.  

[14] TB page 353.

[15] TB page 118.

[16] TB page 82.  The cheque was drawn on OCBC on an account number belonging to Dr Wong, cheque number 329357, in an equivalent amount of Singapore dollars.  Foreign currency exchange slip at TB page 111.  

[17] TB page 137.

[18] TB page 138.

[19] Chip purchase vouchers TB pages 576 – 597.

[20] TB page 140.  The cheque was drawn on OCBC on an account number belonging to Dr Wong, cheque number 7617, in an equivalent amount of Singapore dollars.  Foreign currency exchange slip also at TB page 140.

[21] TB page 131.

[22] TB page 134.

[23] Second affidavit of Dr Wong filed 19 August 2024 at [7] (TB page 547).

[24] TB pages 612 and 614.

[25] See DEF at [10]. 

[26] TB page 244.

[27] Chief Operating Officer.

[28] Initial unsigned version at TB page 259, finalised signed version at TB page 261.  This is the letter referred to in [10(b)] of the DEF. 

[29] See at T3-2, L43 to T3-5, L1; T3-5, LL19-37. 

[30] Noting that the affidavits of Dr Wong in evidence give no evidence of the relevant conversations because court orders required such evidence to only be given orally.  [35] of the first affidavit of Dr Wong (TB page 495) is only evidence of Dr Wong’s state of mind – see ruling on relevant objection to evidence at T1-20, L5 to T1-21, L7.

[31] T3-4, LL38-44; T3-5, LL25-35.

[32] Crockfords Club Ltd v Mehta [1992] 1 WLR 355 at 365-7 per Lloyd LJ, at 368 per Stuart-Smith LJ, cited with approval in Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Hui [2023] EWHC 2036 (KB) at [314] per Cotter J and Aspinall’s Club Ltd v Al- Zayat [2007] EWCA Civ 1001 (CA) at [22] and [48] per Lloyd LJ.

[33] As opposed to an unconditional payment where the loan is treated as having been paid even if the cheque is later dishonoured. The rebuttable presumption that the cheque is instead taken as payment subject to a condition that it is later honoured reflects ordinary commercial practice. The learned authors of Byles on Bills of Exchange 27th ed. (2002) explain at [31-01], “[t]he onus lies on the party alleging that the bill operated as complete satisfaction of the original debt. The presumption of fact being the other way, since, as already stated, if a bill or note is taken on account of a debt and nothing is said at the time, the legal effect of the transaction is that the original debt remains, but the remedy for it is suspended till maturity of the instrument in the hands of the creditor.”  Those passages of Byles were cited with approval by Henry J at first instance in Crockfords (at 360), upheld on appeal.

[34] Crockfords at 366 per Lloyd LJ, at 368 per Stuart-Smith LJ; Byles at [14-06].

[35] Byles at [14-06], fn 37: “[i]f payment of a cheque is stopped, the debt instantly revives as though it   had never been given”.  See Cohen v Hale (1878) 3 QBD 371 at 373 per Cockburn CJ (Mellor J agreeing); Elliott v Crutchley [1903] 2 KB 476 at 480 per Ridley J.

[36] Referred to as “scrip cheques” in Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd v Al Daher [2014] EWHC 2847 (QB).

[37] Referred to by Priestly J at 134.

[38] T3-6, L19 to T3-9, L17.

[39] Dr Wong does not submit that the cheques were received by The Star GC as unconditional payment, and the terms of clause 6 of the CCF makes clear that cheques cashed under the facility are always taken conditionally.

[40] As above.

[41] Second affidavit of Dr Wong filed 19 August 2024 at [7] (TB page 547). 

[42] T3-9, LL1-17.

[43] There was no objection by the defendant’s counsel as to that being an appropriate start date for interest, or the appropriate daily rate – T3-32, LL5-21.

[44] Strictly in respect of the claim I have allowed, the date for the calculation of interest may in fact start as early as 3 August 2018 when the instruction to stop cheques was given.  27 September 2018 appears to be the latest date interest would start to run under any of the causes of action pleaded by the plaintiff. 

[45] There was no submission on behalf of the defendant to the contrary – T3-32, LL23-32.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    The Star Entertainment Qld Limited v Wong

  • Shortened Case Name:

    The Star Entertainment Qld Ltd v Wong

  • MNC:

    [2024] QSC 204

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Hindman J

  • Date:

    09 Sep 2024

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Crockfords Club Ltd v Mehta [1992] 1 WLR 355
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1992] 1 WLR 355
Cite 2 - [1992] 1 WLR 355
Elliott v Crutchley [1903] 2 KB 476
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1903] 2 KB 476
Cite 2 - [1903] 2 KB 476

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.