1 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL: NO. 02(f)-27-08/2024(Q) BETWEEN DATO’ TING CHING LEE ... APPELLANT (NO. KP: 701113-13-5721) AND TING SIU HUA ... RESPONDENT (NO. KP: 601016-13-5721) [In the Matter of the Court of Appeal Malaysia Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No. Q-02(NCvC)(W)-1393-07/2019 Between Ting Siu Hua ... Appellant (No. KP: 601016-13-5721) And Dato’ Ting Ching Lee ... Respondent] (No. KP: 701113-13-5721) [In the matter of the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak at Bintulu Civil Suit No. BTU-23NCvC-1/5-2015(HC) 26/02/2025 18:09:52 02(f)-27-08/2024(Q) Kand. 41 S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2 Between 1. Dato’ Ting Chin Lee 2. Ting Heng Nguong 3. Ngu Toh Yi ... Plaintiffs And Ting Siu Hua ... Defendant] CORAM: ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI, CJSS NORDIN HASSAN, FCJ ABDUL KARIM ABDUL JALIL, FCJ THE GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 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 1 st 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 USD 1.5 million and the advance of rolling rebate for USD 193,800 for gambling at Naga Casino, Cambodia. S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 3 [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 section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956, and sections 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] MLJU 2003 affirmed by the Court of Appeal and the application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed. [3] On 6.8.2024 the appellant’s application for leave to appeal to this Court was granted on one question of law which is as follows: “In construing whether any claim for monies given in the form of credit amounts to a gambling debt or otherwise, should the approach be the approach adopted by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Star City Pty Ltd (formerly known as Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Ltd) v Tan Hong Woon [2002] 1 SLR (R) 306 , i.e. to ascertain the overall purpose of the same by considering it in its entirety as a composite contract?” The Background Facts [4] The appellant is a businessman from Bintulu, Sarawak, and holds various positions in associations and social bodies in Sarawak. S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 4 [5] The respondent is a tour agent and since the year 2000, he was appointed as a promoter or junket by Huang Yu Kiung under the name of Huang Group to bring players to gamble at casinos. As a junket, the respondent was paid by Huang Group on a commission basis which essentially depends on the amount of collection of payments by Huang Group from the players that the respondent brought to gamble at the casinos. [6] On 1.3.2014, Huang Yu Kiung, as STG Operator, and Naga World Limited signed an STG Operator Incentive Program Agreement (“STG Agreement”) to conduct STG business. STG business as defined under Clause 1.1 of the Agreement is the business whereby the STG operator’s pool of players or group of players is brought to the physical premise of Naga Casino for wagering for benefits as specified in Schedule 7 of the Agreement. [7] On 24.12.2014, while in Bintulu Sarawak, the respondent received a telephone call from one Ting Sing King inquiring whether he could arrange a gambling trip to Cambodia for his superior, the appellant, and a few others. After having discussed the details including the line of credit to gamble at Naga Casino Cambodia, the respondent arranged the trip for the appellant, Ting Heng Ngoung, Ngu Toh Yi, Lee Chew Sing, and Ting Sing King to Naga Casino Cambodia from 8.1.2015 to 10.1.2015 for gambling at the International Floor, level 6 of Naga Casino, Cambodia. [8] Upon the request by the appellant, on 8.1.2015 he was granted a line of credit of USD 1,000,000 to gamble at the Casino, and on 9.1.2015 S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 5 a line of credit of USD 500,000 was further given to him. In addition, on 10.1.2015, he was granted a rolling rebate of USD 193,800. Tan Sing King on the other hand was given a credit line of USD 50,000 to gamble and at Level 6 International Floor of the Casino, the casino chips were given to the appellant and others to gamble based on the lines of credit granted to them. Exhibits D4, D5, and D6 disclosed that Huang Group granted the lines of credits and the rolling rebate, and the documents were signed by Tan Hui Phin (DW2), the Supervisor of Huang Group at Cambodia in the Naga Casino. [9] After the gambling trip to Cambodia and upon returning to Sarawak, the appellant, Ting Heng Ngoung, and Ngu Toh Yi alleged that on 17.1.2015, the respondent wrote and published or caused to be written or published defamatory statements against them in Sin Chiew Daily News, a mandarin language newspaper. The publication also includes the photographs of them. The English translation of the statements is the following: “The above 3 persons have debt owed to our company, you are required to appear personally within one week to resolve it, failing which action according to law will be taken against you, and bear the consequences. Contact number: 012796976” [10] Further, the appellant and the two others alleged that on 18.1.2015, the respondent wrote and published or caused to be written or published in the respondent's WeChat account or his agent or servant’s WeChat S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 6 account, the same statements appearing in the Sin Chew Daily News newspaper which is defamatory of them. [11] In the circumstances, the appellant, Ting Heng Ngoung and Ngu Toh Yi filed a defamation suit at the High Court against the respondent. The relief sought was for damages and an injunction to restrain the respondent or his agent from further publishing the defamatory statements. [12] In turn, the respondent filed a counterclaim against the appellant seeking the recovery of monies based on the two lines of credit in the amount of USD 1.5 million and rolling rebate of USD 193,800 or RM 6,097,680.00 which was granted to the appellant for gambling at Naga Casino, Cambodia. Proceedings at the High Court [13] Having considered the evidence presented, the trial judge decided that all the plaintiffs had failed to establish the defamation suit against the respondent as no evidence was adduced to prove that the respondent had on his own or through his agent written or published the purported defamatory statements as appeared in the Sin Chew Daily News newspaper or the WeChat account. S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 7 [14] As to the respondent’s counterclaim for the recovery of monies, the court held that the counterclaim is an attempt to recover gambling debts which is null, illegal, and void under sections 24 and 31 of the Contracts Act 1950 and section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956. The trial judge also endorsed that the enforcement of gambling debts is against public policy and forbidden by law. In addition, a gambling contract is considered nudum pactum (empty contract) which is unenforceable under the law. In coming to the said decision, the trial judge among others, considered the following authorities; Jupiters Limited (Trading as Conrad International Treasury Casino) v Lim Kin Tong [2005] MLJU 534; Sababumi (Sandakan) Sdn Bhd v Datuk Yap Pak Leong [1995] 3 CLJ 256; Star Cruise Services Ltd v Overseas Union Bank Ltd [1999] 2 SLR 412 and Pet Far Eastern (M) Sdn Bhd v Tay Young Huat & Ors [1999] 5 MLJ 558. [15] As a result, the High Court dismissed both the appellant’s claim with two others and the respondent’s counterclaim. Aggrieved by the decision, both parties filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Proceedings at the Court of Appeal [16] In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the High Court in dismissing the appellant and two other claims for defamation but allowed the appeal by the respondent in its claim for the recovery of monies for the two lines of credit and the rolling rebate. S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 8 [17] The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was not plainly wrong in dismissing the appellant’s and two others' claims for defamation against the respondent based on their failure to prove directly or by circumstantial evidence that it was the respondent who had published the alleged defamatory statement. [18] As to the respondent’s counterclaim, the Court of Appeal decided that there was an oral agreement between the appellant and the respondent to obtain the credit lines for the purpose of gambling at Naga Casino. The evidence relied upon by the Court of Appeal among others, is as follows: (i) On 24.12.2014 in Bintulu, the appellant through his agent, Ting Sing King, requested a line of credit of USD 1,000,000 for gambling at Naga Casino; (ii) The respondent agreed to grant the line of credit to the appellant for the sum of USD 1,000,000 as he had known the appellant for over 20 years and had earlier arranged similar credit lines for the appellant for gambling purposes. (iii) On 8.1.2015, Tan Hui Phin (DW1) contacted the respondent when the appellant and Ting Sing King were at Level 6 International Floor of Naga Casino and requested their chips under their lines of credit. S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 9 (iv) On 9.1.2015, DW1 again called the respondent when the appellant through Ting Sing King requested the 2 nd line of credit for USD 500,000 which the respondent granted. (v) On 10.1.2015, the respondent allowed the rolling rebate of USD 193,800 requested by the appellant through Ting Sing King. (vi) DW1 looked after the appellant and other members of the group at the Casino and was responsible for recording the issuance of casino chips based on the lines of credits granted to them. [19] Further, the Court of Appeal held that the oral contract between the respondent and the appellant over the two lines of credit amounting to USD 1.5 million and the rolling rebate of USD 193,800 are not gambling debts. The lines of credit and rolling rebates were only for obtaining the gambling chips and it was the gambling chips that the appellant used to bet at the casino. The two lines of credit and the rolling rebate are in the nature of loan or credit given to the appellant to enable him to cash them into gambling chips. To understand the reasoning of the Court of Appeal it is appropriate to quote the exact statements made in paragraphs 63 and 64 of the Court of Appeal’s grounds of judgment as follows: “[63] DW1 has given evidence that after confirming with the defendant that the 1 st plaintiff is granted to use two lines of credits amounting to USD 1.5 million and the rolling rebates of USD 193,800, DW1 then went to cash the two lines of credits and the rolling rebates into gambling chips. It was the gambling chips that the 1 st plaintiff used to gamble at the casino. S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 10 [64] We are therefore of the considered opinion that the learned Judge was plainly wrong in his finding that the defendant was attempting to recover gambling debts, that were owed by the 1 st plaintiff to him. The two lines of credit and the rolling rebates are not gambling debts. They are in the nature of a loan or credit given to the 1 st plaintiff to enable him to cash them into gambling chips The 1 st plaintiff did not give evidence that he was gambling with the credit lines and rolling rebates . As explained by DW1, the 1 st plaintiff was only gambling at the casino after the issuance of the gambling chips. The gambling debts, if any, would be between the 1 st plaintiff and the casino concerned.” (emphasis added) [20] The Court of Appeal also relied heavily on the decision in the case of Wynn Resort (Macau) S.A. v Poh Yang Hong (supra) in coming to this decision. The Appeal [21] The sole question of law granted for the present appeal as alluded to earlier and reproduced below for convenience. “In construing whether any claim for monies given in the form of credit amounts to a gambling debt or otherwise, should the approach be the approach adopted by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Star City Pty Ltd (formerly known as Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Ltd) v Tan Hong Woon [2002] 1 SLR (R) 306 , i.e. to ascertain the overall purpose of the same by considering it in its entirety as a composite contract?” S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 11 [22] Before answering the above leave question, the main issues in this appeal are whether the credit facilities or credit agreements granted to the appellant for the sole purpose of gambling is a gaming contract and whether the sum claim by the respondent is a gambling debt unenforceable under Malaysian law. Submission by parties [23] In essence, the appellant submitted first, that the underlying nature of the transaction and its purpose in the present case should be considered as a composite contract. Based on the evidence and transactions in this case the appellant contended that the respondent’s claim was for recovery of gambling debts or action to recover money won upon wagers and not an ordinary loan. As such, the respondent’s action is unenforceable under section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956, and sections 24 and 31 of the Contracts Act 1950. The appellant heavily relied upon the Singapore apex court’s case of Star City Pty Ltd (supra) to support the contention. In addition, the appellant brought our attention to the decision of the Malaysian Courts that was consistent with the appellant’s submission. The cases among others are Jupiters Ltd v Lim Kin Tong [2006] 5 CLJ 277, Jupiters Ltd (trading as Conrad International Treasury Casino) v Gan Kok Beng [2007] 7 MLJ 228, Pet Far Eastern (M) Sdn Bhd v Tay Young Huat & Ors [1999] 5 MLJ 558 and The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd v Datuk Seri Osu Haji Sukam [2005] 6 MLJ 760. [24] The appellant further contended that the High Court decision in Wynn Resorts (Macau) S.A. v Poh Yang Hong (supra) and affirmed by S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 12 the Court of Appeal was wrongly decided as the court misunderstood the nature and mechanics of a gaming transaction and the result of a gaming contract which would breach section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956 and sections 24 and 31 of the Contracts Act 1950. The decision in the Wynn case would also make the provisions abovementioned superfluous. [25] The appellant also submitted that besides Singapore, other foreign jurisdictions that have similar statutory provisions had decided that no action can be brought or maintained to recover monies related to gambling or wagering. Specific references were made to the decisions of the courts in New Zealand, Ireland, and India. [26] Therefore, it was the appellant's submission that the leave question in the present case be answered in the affirmative. [27] Conversely, the respondent submitted that the respondent’s claims on the two lines of credit and the rolling rebate were not gambling debts but credit facilities in the form of an oral agreement that did not involve any uncertainty in the outcome of the two lines of credit and the rolling rebate. The gaming and wagering activities were between the appellant and Naga Casino in Cambodia. [28] Further, the respondent contended that the granting of the two lines of credit and the rolling rebate to legally gamble at Naga Casino was not against public policy under section 24(d) of the Contracts Act 1950, and as such, the claim for its recovery is valid and enforceable. S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 13 [29] Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the decision in Star City’s case should not be followed in the present case but instead accept the decision in Wynn Resorts which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed. Thus, the decision of Wynn Resorts has been examined by this Court in refusing to grant the leave application. In addition, the leave question in the present case has been answered in Wynn Resorts which this Court should answer in the negative and uphold the decision in Wynn Resorts and the Court of Appeal’s decision in the present case. The Law [30] It is apposite at this juncture, to first examine the relevant provisions of the law. They are as follows: (i) Contracts Act 1950 (a) Section 24 24. The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless— (a) it is forbidden by a law ; (b) it is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat any law ; (c) it is fraudulent; (d) it involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or opposed to public policy. (e) the court regards it as immoral, or S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 14 In each of the above cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. (emphasis added) (b) Section 31 31. (1) Agreements by way of wager are void ; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or other uncertain event on which any wager is made (emphasis added) (ii) Civil Law Act 1956 (a) Section 26 26. (1) All contracts or agreements, whether by parol or in writing, by way of gaming or wagering shall be null and void. (2) No action shall be brought or maintained in any Court for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager or which has been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager has been made. (3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not be deemed to apply to any subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, for or toward any plate, prize, or sum of money to be awarded to the winner of any lawful game, sport, pastime or exercise. S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 15 (4) Any promise, express or implied, to pay any person any sum of money paid by him under or in respect of any contract or agreement rendered null and void by subsections (1) and (2), or to pay any sum of money by way of commission, fee, reward or otherwise in respect of any such contract or of any services in relation thereto or in connection therewith, shall be null and void, and no action shall be brought or maintained to recover any such sum of money. (emphasis added) [31] The letter of the law abovementioned is plain and unambiguous which needs no further interpretation. Under section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950, an agreement is unlawful if, amongst others, it is forbidden by law, if permitted would defeat any law or opposes public policy. [32] Next, section 31 of the same Act provides that an agreement by way of wager is void and no suit shall be brought to court to recover monies arising from such contract. [33] Further, section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956 reinforced the provision of section 31 of the Contracts Act 1950 which provides that all contracts or agreements, either oral or in writing by way of gaming or wagering are null and void and the recovery of monies from such contracts or agreements are unenforceable in court. [34] In a nutshell, any gaming and wagering contract is unlawful and gambling debt are unenforceable under Malaysian law. S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 16 [35] In addressing the issue before this Court, firstly, it is pertinent to examine the meaning of gaming, wagering, or wagering contract, under the statute or case law. In the Common Gaming Houses Act 1953 , the word ‘gaming’ is defined as follows: “gaming” with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means the playing of any game of chance or of mixed chance and skill for money or money’s worth and includes the playing of any game specified in Column I of the First and Second Schedules and the playing or operation of any gaming machine." (emphasis added) [36] On the other hand, the words “wagering” or “wagering contract’’ are not defined under any of the statutes but are explained by case laws. In a landmark case of Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1892] 2 QB 484 Hawkins J explained what a wagering contract compared to the ordinary contract in the following manner: “It is not easy to define with precision what amounts to a wagering contract, nor the narrow line of demarcation which separates a wagering from an ordinary contract; but, according to my view, a wagering contract is one by which two persons, professing to hold opposite views touching the issue of a future uncertain event, mutually agree that dependent upon the determination of that event, one shall win from the other, and that other shall pay or hand over to him, a sum of money or other stake; neither the contracting parties having any other interest in that contract than the sum or stake he will so win or lose, there being no other real consideration for the making of such contract by either of the parties. It is essential to a wagering contract that each party may under it either win or lose, whether he will win or lose being S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 17 dependent on the issue of the event, and, therefore, remaining uncertain until the issue is known. If either of the parties may win but cannot lose, or may lose but cannot win, it is not a wagering contract” (emphasis added) (see also John Lo Thau Fah v FACB Resorts Bhd (2012) 1 CLJ 581 ) The analysis and decision of this Court. [37] In the present case, the first essential question is whether there was a gaming or wagering contract when the appellant was granted the credit lines and the rolling rebate by Huang Group to the appellant. Next, whether the granting of the credit lines and rolling rebate was independent of the gaming activities by the appellant at the casino and to be considered a pure loan and enforceable under Malaysian law. Further, whether the recovery of money based on credit lines and rolling rebate is the recovery of gambling debt unenforceable under Malaysian law. [38] It is undisputed that the credit lines and the rolling rebate were for the appellant to purchase the Naga Casino’s gambling chips so he could gamble at the casino. That was what he did and he lost and had to pay for the amount of the credit lines and rolling rebate. Now, the main issue here is whether the granting of credit lines and the rolling rebate was a loan distinct from the appellant’s gaming activities in Naga Casino and as such is not a gambling debt or whether it is a composite contract with the gaming activities by the appellant at the Naga Casino. S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 18 [39] In answering the novel question above, first and foremost, we need to understand the purpose of the legislature to enact the above-mentioned provisions vis-a-vis sections 24 and 31 of the Contracts Act 1950 and section 26 of the Civil Law Act 1956. There is no other but to curb gambling or wagering activities. These activities are only allowable upon the issuance of a license by the authorities. As mentioned earlier, the express provisions of the sections speak volumes about the legislature's intention to curb gaming or wagering activities. [40] The above view is further also fortified upon examining the debates in Parliament on gaming activities as disclosed in the Hansard on 15.6.2023 as follows: Datuk Seri Nasution bin Ismail: Gambling industry ini Tuan Yang Di Pertua, whether it is online or offline. Government memang ada significant concern. The government is actively taking measures to combat it , dengan izin. Memang kita memberi keprihatinan yang tinggi yang signifikan dan memang kita secara aktif mengambil langkah untuk combat . Tidak kira daripada segi online atau offline. (emphasis added) [41] Reverting to the issues at hand, was the granting of the credit lines and rolling rebate in the present case a genuine loan distinct from the gaming activities by the appellant at the Naga Casino? In my view, it cannot be so, the credit facilities were meant for the sole purpose of gambling at the Naga Casino. Without the credit facilities, the appellant obviously could not obtain the casino chips for gambling. Further, the S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 19 credit facilities could not be used for other purposes but for gambling at Naga Casino. Thus, the credit facilities could not be termed as a genuine loan independent of the appellant’s gaming activities at Naga Casino. [42] The respondent also in his testimony admitted that the credit facilities granted to the appellant were for gambling purposes. In his written statement dated 21.1.2019, the answer to question 7, the respondent among others said this: (h) The 1 st Plaintiff had gambled and accumulated the total rollings of USD19,380,000.00... (i) The two lines of credits totaling USD1,500,000.00 were not cash and to be given in casino chips at Naga Casino for the purpose of gambling. (emphasis added) [43] This court should not ignore or brush aside the glaring fact that the credit facilities were for gambling purposes and accept that they were pure loans. The reality of the transactions must be examined objectively and in totality. In the present case, the reality is that granting the credit facilities to the appellant was gaming or wagering transactions. To conclude otherwise is to allow parties to get around the law and indirectly defeat the law. [44] Our position on gaming or waging contracts is almost similar to the earlier position in England. Section 18 of the Gaming Act 1945 of England, which was later replaced by the Gambling Act 2005, provides: S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 20 “All contracts or agreements, whether by parole or in writing, by way of gaming or wagering, shall be null and void ; and no suit shall be brought or maintained in any court of law and equity for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won any wager , or which shall have been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event of which any wager shall have been made.” (emphasis added) [45] In Law v Dearnly [1950] 1 KB 400 , the brief facts were the plaintiff laid bets on horse races with a firm of bookmakers. A loss had resulted, and the plaintiff communicated the bookmakers’ account of winnings and losses to the defendant, who, while orally agreeing with the accuracy of the accounts, failed to reimburse the plaintiff the sum paid to the bookmaker. The defendant pleaded the defence of the Gaming Act 1892 against the plaintiff's action on the account stated. The plaintiff’s action was struck out on the ground that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, frivolous and vexatious. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the court had to look at the reality of the transaction and that the account stated being in respect of betting transactions, the action was rendered null and void by s.1 of the Gaming Act 1892 and had been rightly struck out. Tucker LJ said this: “As I have said before, until the recent effort to get around the Gaming Act by means of action of this kind, it had always been recognized that such an obvious dodge, if I may use the word, was doomed to failure. That being the case, the law now having been definitely settled to that effect by the decision of Streatfeild J., which I think is clearly right, in my opinion it is the duty of this court to see S/N wD8zFfYRx0CVMwiKWtJx8w **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal