In an extraordinary day of testimony in the Singapore High Court trial in which Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) is accused of False Imprisonment, Assault and Battery, RWS Vice President and Head of Legal, Mr Mark Chee, confirmed there is no RWS document entitled “House Rules.”
After issuing a prohibition order which prevented the Plaintiff, Mr Adesh Goel, from attending the casino for 12 months, citing “Breach of House Rule”, RWS was at a loss to advise which exact House Rule he had contravened.
Despite a 21 May 2012 letter from Goel officially requesting the “House Rules” in order for an appeal to be made with the 30 days appeal period stipulated by RWS, it took until 5 June 2012 for RWS to respond. During those two weeks RWS’ army of 15 people in their legal team (including 7 counsel), established there was no such document called the “House Rules”. When quizzed on Goel’s request for a copy of the “House Rules”, Chee replied, “If there were such a document … we would have given it.”
It was only in an affidavit opposing Mr Goel’s motion for specific discovery in February 2014, some 21 months after the first request that RWS asserted the phrase “House Rules” actually referred to the Casino Security Operation Standard Operating Procedure.
Earlier RWS witnesses had testified to there being around four to five security incidents at the casino during every 12-hour shift. Chee testified that claims are being made against RWS weekly if not daily.
Mr Chee stated on oath that although the Casino Regulatory Authority of Singapore reviews every standard operating procedure they “consciously stop short of approving it”. He testified that subsequent to the incident involving Mr Goel RWS had changed the “persona non grata” notice template.
The trial continues with witnesses from the Security Contractor SATS due to take the stand. RWS have attached SATS as a third party to the legal action alleging that even if Mr Goel is successful in this suit, it is SATS who should be responsible for any compensation awarded by the court and not themselves.
When responding for our request for comment, RWS declined to comment on the case.
