Back
Singapore High Court: Chander Agarwal's $468K gifts to Lee Xiu Hui Felicia were not loans
In a decisive ruling that clarifies the line between gifts and loans in romantic relationships, the has dismissed a claim by Mr Chander Agarwal, the CEO of , that the S$468,090 he spent on his ex-girlfriend, Ms Lee Xiu Hui Felicia, during their 15-month relationship were repayable loans. The court held that all disputed sums were gifts, not loans, and rejected the claim with costs.
Lavish Gifts, Bitter Break-up: The $468K Question
The parties met on a flight in and began a romantic relationship in . During the relationship, Agarwal spent heavily on Lee, covering expenses ranging from luxury shopping and first-class flights to insurance premiums and even feng shui consultations. After the relationship ended in , Agarwal sued, alleging that all these sums were that Lee had agreed to repay. He also brought alternative claims for , , and .
The central legal question was straightforward: were these payments gifts or loans? The court applied the from that a requires an and , and that once a gift is made, the .
A Pattern of Generosity: Gifts Before Romance
Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin noted a significant weakness in Agarwal's case: his inability to point to any documentary evidence — no WhatsApp messages, no emails — showing that Lee had requested the sums as loans or agreed to repay them. The judge observed that Agarwal had habitually given Lee lavish gifts even before their relationship began, including designer handbags, a travel wallet, and a first-class flight ticket, with messages like
"I am not a money lender."
This pattern continued throughout the relationship. WhatsApp exchanges showed Agarwal repeatedly offering Lee credit cards, setting spending budgets, and reassuring her:
"We are in rs so it's fine."
The judge found that Agarwal's own evidence showed he intended the sums as gifts.
The '' Theory: A Bridge Too Far
Agarwal's central argument was that once Lee accepted anything he offered, it automatically became a loan. The judge called this position "contrary to common sense" and "unsustainable." During cross-examination, Agarwal admitted that he never told Lee that the money was a loan before she accepted it. The judge noted that his answers were "illogical and often evasive," including a claim that he had "disowned" his children.
The and the
Agarwal relied on a allegedly signed by Lee, stating she would take a "deposit" of S$10,000–S$25,000 monthly. The judge found the circumstances of its production suspect and attached limited weight to the handwriting expert's opinion, noting the possibility that Agarwal himself could have written the disputed signature. Crucially, Lee produced a subsequent in which Agarwal stated he would never ask for the return of gifts. The judge held that even if the was binding, it had been superseded by this later promise.
Heav'n Has No Rage: The Court's Final Word
The judge dismissed all of Agarwal's claims. On , the court found no evidence that Lee had falsely represented the relationship or her ability to repay. On , there was no because the payments were gifts, not . On , the court found no by Lee.
In his concluding remarks, the judge quoted William Congreve:
"Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd, Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd."
He observed that this case shows such emotion is
"not the sole province of one gender."
As legal experts note, the ruling reinforces the fundamental principle that in disputes over money between former partners, . A gift cannot be retrospectively recast as a loan simply because the relationship has soured.
The court ordered Agarwal to pay , to be taxed unless agreed. Both parties have for a different order.
