RAMBAS MARKETING CO., LLC v. YEUNG HANG KIN

HCA 323/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 323 OF 2001

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This is the trial of an action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to recover the balance of a gambling debt incurred by the Defendant as a result of his gambling activities at the Desert Inn, a casino in Las Vegas in the State of Nevada in the United States.

2. At the trial, the Plaintiff adduced evidence, both oral as well as documentary, to prove its case. I am satisfied by the evidence adduced before me that the debt in question, i.e. a sum of US$92,500 was incurred and is outstanding as a result of gambling activities of the Defendant in the Desert Inn on 15 January 1998.

3. In fact the activities led to the incurring of a total indebtedness of US$100,000 as evidenced by 6 credit instruments or "markers", all signed by the Defendant.

4. Subsequent to the incurring of the gambling debt, a partial repayment of US $ 7,500 was made by the Defendant thereby reducing the outstanding indebtedness to the amount claimed by the Plaintiff in the present action. As I said, I have heard oral evidence relating to the incurring of the debt as well as seeing documentary evidence including the markers in question which clearly evidence the incurring of the gambling debt.

5. As regards the enforceability of the gambling debt so incurred in this jurisdiction, I have heard expert evidence which I accept relating to the law of Nevada, the place where the debt was incurred. I am satisfied that under the law in the State of Nevada, the debt in question as evidenced by the markers is and was enforceable at all material times, the markers being credit instruments according to the relevant Nevada statue. And in relation to the enforcement of the gambling debt in Hong Kong, there are local authorities (e.g. Wong Hon v Sheraton Desert Inn Corp [1995] 3 HKC 331) all of which are to the effect that such a gambling debt is enforceable in Hong Kong if it is valid and enforceable according to the law where the debt was incurred in the first place.

6. Given my conclusion relating to the enforceability of the gambling debt in question according to the law of Nevada, I have no hesitation in concluding that the same is enforceable in this jurisdiction.

7. As regards the Plaintiff's title to sue, at the material time when the debt was incurred the casino was owned and operated by Sheraton Desert Inn Corporation. But as from 23 June 2000 Valvino Lamore LLC became Sheraton's lawful successor to the business as well as the gambling receivables pursuant to an assignment, that is, according to the expert evidence that I have heard, valid according to the law of Nevada. Pursuant to that assignment, title to the gambling debt in question became vested in Valvino Lamore LLC.

8. By a deed of assignment dated 22 December 2000, which according to the expert evidence I have also heard, is valid under the law of Nevada, Valvino Lamore LLC assigned the subject gambling debt to the Plaintiff, its subsidiary company. In those circumstances, I am also satisfied that the Plaintiff has a good title to sue in its own name the gambling debt in question, the validity of the respective assignments being governed by the law of Nevada with which the assignments plainly had the most real and substantial connection. Based on the matters set out above, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has a good claim against the Defendant.

9. I therefore order that judgment in the sum of US$92,500 or its HK dollar equivalent at the time of payment be entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant. I also order that there be interest on top at the judgment rate from the date of writ i.e. 18 January 2001 to the date of payment. I also award the costs of this action to the Plaintiff against the Defendant to be taxed if not agreed.