Man fails to prove money from then-girlfriend was given out of ‘love and affection’, ordered to repay S$321,000

He said the present case clearly showed that the sums were loans and not gifts.

The High Court Judge pointed out that Mr Chee had conceded on multiple occasions that the sums would be repaid, and found that Mr Chee was not a “credible witness”.

“He was evasive and always seemed to have an explanation of why things were said or done, even if those explanations defied objective observation,” Justice Wong said.

When asked whether the money was a gift or loan, Mr Chee had described it as a “grey area”. Justice Wong found that Mr Chee wanted to stay in this grey area to evade his obligations when it suited him.

In fact, in WhatsApp exchanges with Ms Teow, Mr Chee had conceded that the sums were loans that would be repaid, said Justice Wong. 

In a message on Aug 6, 2023, Mr Chee claimed he was “touched and embarrassed” by her help and promised to “fully repay you for every help you have given me”.

In January 2024, he declared to Ms Teow, “I can pay you back every penny”.

Likewise, the court found that Ms Teow had clearly indicated her intention to be repaid. She kept a record of the amounts lent to Mr Chee, which the High Court Judge said would not have been necessary if the sums were gifts.

“The defendant’s efforts at deflecting and explaining away what were quite plainly loans that were supposed to be repaid were unconvincing and, at times, incredible,” Justice Wong said.

PROJECTED IMAGE OF HIGHER STATUS

The court found that Mr Chee had displayed a “pattern of conduct” aimed at impressing Ms Teow and had projected himself as someone he was not.

Mr Chee had told Ms Teow when they first met that he was “in aviation”. During cross examination, he was shown his profile from his tuition agency, where he introduced himself as a “certified airline pilot”.

Asked about the profile, Mr Chee vacillated between claims that he did not post the introduction and had no recollection of it.

During exchanges with Ms Teow, Mr Chee also referred to himself as a VIP at hotels and other establishments, but later tried to play down these references.

“In my judgment, the defendant had made numerous statements to the claimant with the intent to impress her and to present himself as an individual of higher importance than what he perceived his status as a tuition teacher and cafe worker,” Justice Wong said.

“The claimant’s evidence, which I accept, is that she was taken in by the defendant’s efforts in this regard and, at least partly, this motivated her to lend him money.”

DOCUMENTS SIGNED UNDER DURESS?

During the trial, Mr Chee argued that he had signed the acknowledgement documents under duress, saying that Ms Teow had held their relationship hostage and used her family members to harass him.

He produced a letter from a counselling psychologist stating that he was suffering from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.

The court ruled that since the psychologist was not called on to give evidence, no weight should be given to the letter.

Mr Chee also argued that Ms Teow and her family had taken advantage of his “emotional infirmity and his frightened state”, which he claimed resulted from their insults and threats, to get him to sign the agreements.

He alleged that Ms Teow’s brother had “connections to the underworld in Penang” and had repeatedly threatened to hurt him.

Those allegations emerged as “fabrications”, said Justice Wong, when Mr Chee conceded during cross-examination that Ms Teow’s brother had never made direct threats against him.

While Mr Chee also claimed that he was pressured and rushed into signing the acknowledgement, Ms Teow pointed out that Mr Chee had access to legal advice when considering the acknowledgements, showing that he was not under pressure.

Justice Wong found no evidence that Mr Chee was subjected to illegitimate pressure that would entitle him to the defence of duress.

HOW THE TOTAL AMOUNT WAS CALCULATED

According to Ms Teow, she transferred S$208,444 to Mr Chee via PayNow or cash from her savings, S$19,750 through cash advances or withdrawals from her credit cards and S$40,600 through bank balance transfers from her credit cards.

While Mr Chee disputed the amount, the court accepted that S$268,794 had been transferred to him, based on documentary evidence.

Ms Teow said Mr Chee owed her S$89,945.16 for expenses charged to her credit cards, including interest and fees.

The court ultimately assessed the credit card spending, including interest, at S$87,322.40 after declining to overlook a discrepancy in Ms Teow’s figures.

Mr Chee argued that he was not liable for interest and fees incurred on the credit cards because Ms Teow had failed to mitigate her loss.

However, the court ruled that Mr Chee had not demonstrated what else Ms Teow could have done to avoid the fees and interest payments, given that she had already exhausted her cash savings.

“On the point that the claimant should have stopped the defendant’s spending sooner, this is putting the cart before the horse as it was well within the defendant’s control to put a pause on his spending habits,” Justice Wong said.

After taking into account the S$35,000 repaid by Mr Chee in March 2024, the court found that he owed Ms Teow S$321,116.40.