Singapore: The General Division of the Singapore High Court has dismissed a claim, against a former girlfriend Ms Felicia Lee for the return of $468,090 spent on her during their relationship, holding that the sums were gifts given out of love and affection rather than loans.
Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin was hearing the Claimant's action against the Defendant, a former flight attendant who later worked as an insurance agent and medical sales officer. The parties met on a flight in 2019, began a romantic relationship in September 2022, and broke up in December 2023 after the Claimant suspected the Defendant of infidelity. The Claimant brought the present action in March 2024, seeking repayment of eleven categories of expenditure including credit card spending, life insurance premiums, a debt to the Defendant's former employer, a feng shui consultation, first-class travel and shopping on trips to the United States and Hong Kong, incorporation of her company, and fees for an executive programme which he characterised as interest-free loans.
The Claimant's case rested substantially on a handwritten note, allegedly initialled by the Defendant, stating that monthly sums 'taken as deposit' belonged to him and would be returned whenever he needed them. He also pleaded that the Defendant had falsely represented that their relationship was genuine and exclusive, and that she had substantial funds and would repay him, and claimed alternatively in unjust enrichment and institutional constructive trust. The Defendant denied signing the note or making any such representations, and maintained that the sums were gifts.
The court found the Claimant's case to be marked by a lack of documentary evidence and precision, noting that he could point to no WhatsApp message or other record in which the Defendant acknowledged any loan, despite the relationship spanning more than a year of frequent messaging, and that he had conceded in cross-examination that some pleaded items did not match the evidence. The court also noted that the Claimant had habitually given the Defendant lavish gifts even before their romantic relationship began.
On the handwritten note, the court found the circumstances of its production to be suspect, since the Claimant had not mentioned it in his original pleadings and introduced it only seven months later, and that it did not correspond to the actual pattern of payments he claimed. The court also gave limited weight to the handwriting expert's opinion, noting unexplained inconsistencies in the analysis of the signature. In any event, the court held that even if the note had been signed by the Defendant, it had been superseded by a later promissory note in which the Claimant himself had undertaken never to ask the Defendant to return her car or any items given to her "out of my own goodwill and generosity."
The court concluded that the evidence pointed overwhelmingly to the disputed sums having been intended as gifts, observing that it was inherently incredible that the Defendant, on a relatively modest salary, would repeatedly borrow such large sums for luxury spending, and rejected the Claimant's theory that any sum he offered automatically became a loan once accepted. Having found that the sums were gifts, the court held that the Claimant's claims in misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, and his alternative claim of an institutional constructive trust, also failed.
In its concluding remarks, the court observed that "the Claimant, smitten by the Defendant, had showered her with expensive gifts during their relationship," but that when the relationship ended on a sour note, he became embittered and sought to extract a price from her an observation the court noted was not confined to either gender.
The Claimant's claims were accordingly dismissed, with costs at the standard rate awarded to the Defendant, to be taxed unless agreed.
Appearances:
For the Claimant: Mohamed Baiross and Sharifah Nabilah binte Syed Omar (I.R.B Law LLP).
For the Defendant: Sunil Singh Panoo and Jasjeet Singh s/o Harjindar Singh (Dhillon & Panoo LLC).
Case Title: Chander Agarwal v Lee Xiu Hui Felicia, [2026] SGHC 185, Originating Claim No 138 of 2024
