ع
Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin dismissed Chander Agarwal’s claim in a written judgment released this week after the logistics company chief executive sued Felicia Lee for repayment of multiple sums he transferred to her between 2022 and 2023. The judge found that Agarwal had shown a consistent pattern of showering Lee with lavish presents even before their romantic involvement began and had repeatedly assured her that no repayment was expected. Court evidence including WhatsApp messages indicated Agarwal told Lee he was not acting as a moneylender when she once inquired about reimbursement according to the judgment.
Agarwal who serves as chief executive of listed firm TCI Express first encountered Lee a former flight attendant during a 2019 flight before their relationship developed in September 2022. The pair ended their involvement in December 2023 after Agarwal suspected Lee of infidelity prompting him to file the lawsuit in March 2024. The High Court heard that Agarwal framed the disputed transfers as interest-free loans although Lee maintained they were gifts given willingly during their time together.
The claimed amounts encompassed S$206,000 in credit card charges S$129,000 on overseas travel S$17,000 paid to a feng shui master for Lee’s apartment and S$30,000 toward a Stanford-NUS executive programme The Straits Times reported. Additional sums included S$50,000 Agarwal said he provided to settle a debt Lee owed her former employer and S$15,000 directed to her fashion business. Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin concluded Agarwal failed to prove several of the transfers occurred or that Lee had agreed to repay them.
In the judgment Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin observed that the evidence clearly showed the claimant smitten by the defendant had showered her with expensive gifts during their relationship. The judge added that unfortunately when their relationship ended on a sour note Agarwal became embittered and was determined to extract a price from her. Messages presented in court further undermined Agarwal’s position as he had reassured Lee there was no need for repayment.
A comparable 2015 High Court case reported by The Straits Times saw businessman Kua Tee Beng lose his bid to recover around S$500,000 in gifts including cash jewellery and a condominium deposit given to his former mistress. Judicial Commissioner George Wei ruled in that matter that Kua provided no evidence of duress or pressure and that the transfers were voluntary presents made in the context of an intimate relationship. The outcome aligned with legal principles that valid inter vivos gifts cannot be revoked absent factors such as undue influence or fraud.
Singapore court precedents including a 2021 High Court decision in Lyu Jun v Wei Ho-Hung have reaffirmed that a gift requires both donative intent and delivery of the asset with the donor’s subjective intention assessed at the time of transfer. Once established such gifts become irrevocable according to judgments reviewed by legal analysis platform Conventus Law. The present ruling adds to a pattern of decisions where post-breakup attempts to recharacterise romantic generosity as loans have generally failed without strong documentary proof.
