\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE: A court has set aside an earlier order requiring a woman to repay S$175,689 (US$137,300) in <\/span>a loan dispute with her mother-in-law<\/span> after new evidence was admitted.<\/span><\/p>\n The previous ruling, granted by a deputy registrar in August 2025 by way of summary judgment, has been overturned after District Judge Chiah Kok Khun said in a judgment dated Mar 16 that there are now \u201ctriable issues\u201d and that the new evidence \u201cshould be fully dealt with in a trial\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n A summary judgment is a fast-track legal ruling where a judge decides a case without a full trial because the facts appear undisputed.<\/span><\/p>\n Documents from related divorce proceedings between the woman and her husband were introduced as new evidence after the court granted permission to use them.<\/span><\/p>\n The Family Justice Courts lifted restrictions on the use of documents from related divorce proceedings, allowing the husband\u2019s affidavit to be relied on in the loan dispute.<\/span><\/p>\n In a sworn statement, the husband said that he had transferred S$620,670 to his mother. He wrote that part of the amount was to \u201crepay monies the (wife) borrowed from my mother\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n As the claim of S$220,185 could have been fully satisfied through the husband\u2019s transfers, there is now a basis to suggest that the woman may have a defence of double recovery, said District Judge Chiah.<\/span><\/p>\n A double recovery is when a claimant is compensated more than once for the same loss or damage. In this case, it might be a double recovery if the mother-in-law were allowed to claim the same sum again.<\/span><\/p>\n A court-imposed gag order issued on Nov 10 to protect the identity of the woman’s child means that the woman, the mother-in-law and the woman’s husband cannot be named.\u00a0<\/p>\n In his affidavit, the woman\u2019s husband said he had channelled proceeds from the sale of the couple\u2019s matrimonial home to his mother for several purposes.<\/span><\/p>\n These included repaying a joint loan of about S$314,304 used to purchase and renovate a property, as well as S$220,185, which he said his wife owed to his mother.<\/span><\/p>\n He also said that part of the funds was used to extend loans to two companies.<\/span><\/p>\n Court documents showed that the sale of the matrimonial home generated more than S$815,000, including S$60,000 in option money and over S$755,000 in sale proceeds.<\/span><\/p>\nTHE HUSBAND\u2019S SWORN STATEMENT<\/span><\/h2>\n