Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd Tan See Meng

Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd Tan See Meng

Application dismissed because it was filed approximately three years late without good reason so extension of time was not warranted; the public policy ground fails because registration of a final foreign judgment under REJA is distinct from initiating substantive proceedings to recover a gambling debt and REJA's s.5(1)(a)(v) must be applied narrowly; alleged Evidence Act non-compliance is not a ground under REJA; costs RM 5,000 awarded to judgment creditor.

Citation
WA-24-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Judgment Creditor: MARINA BAY SANDS PTE LTD.; Judgment Debtor: TAN SEE MENG
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 March 2026
Case Number
WA-24-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Registration of Foreign Judgment Under Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 / Application to Set Aside Registration (enclosure 17)
Outcome
Enclosure 17 dismissed; registration of the Singapore judgment upheld.
Legal Topics
Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, Public Policy, Gambling Debt, Registration of Foreign Judgment, Setting Aside Registration
Source Language
Malay/English
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Private International Law Civil Procedure Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 Public Policy Gambling Debt Registration of Foreign Judgment Setting Aside Registration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MARINA BAY SANDS PTE LTD.

Judgment Creditor

TAN SEE MENG

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Registration of Foreign Judgment Under Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 / Application to Set Aside Registration (enclosure 17)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether registration of Singapore judgment is contrary to Malaysian public policy because it arises from a gambling debt
  2. 2 Whether the application to set aside was filed out of time and whether extension of time should be granted
  3. 3 Whether failure to comply with Evidence Act 1950 is a ground to set aside registration

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because it was filed approximately three years late without good reason so extension of time was not warranted; the public policy ground fails because registration of a final foreign judgment under REJA is distinct from initiating substantive proceedings to recover a gambling debt and REJA's s.5(1)(a)(v) must be applied narrowly; alleged Evidence Act non-compliance is not a ground under REJA; costs RM 5,000 awarded to judgment creditor.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 17 dismissed; registration of the Singapore judgment upheld.

Orders

  • Enclosure 17 dismissed
  • Costs of RM 5,000.00 subject to allocatur to be paid to the Judgment Creditor