A Singaporean man sued a Malaysian woman to recover over $100,000 he claimed to have spent on her during their seven-year relationship after discovering she had married someone else.<\/p>\n
Low Siong Ngo said he believed he was in an exclusive romantic relationship with Goh Mei Loon, which was why he willingly paid for her expenses, helped finance her business ventures and even gave her family heirloom jewellery as an engagement gift.<\/p>\n
However, Goh disputed his account, maintaining that they were never in an exclusive relationship and that the money and gifts were given voluntarily.<\/p>\n
Low subsequently sued her to recover the money and later took legal action in Malaysia to enforce the Singapore court\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n
According to Shin Min Daily News and a State Courts judgment<\/a> published on Oct 5, the case recently returned to the Singapore courts after Goh sought to overturn an earlier judgment ordering her to repay the money.<\/p>\n Low met Goh in 2008 when they worked at the Singapore branch of the same company.<\/p>\n He claimed they became lovers in 2009 and were in an exclusive relationship for about seven years<\/a>.<\/p>\n Between 2009 and 2015, Low said he provided Goh with substantial financial support because he believed they were exclusively dating and planning a future together.<\/p>\n His expenses included paying her insurance premiums, financing her business ventures and gifting her a set of family heirloom jewellery as an engagement present.<\/p>\n He also claimed to have contributed towards the purchase of what he believed would be their matrimonial home in Malaysia.<\/p>\n On top of that, he allowed Goh to withdraw money freely from a Malaysian bank account.<\/p>\n Low said he spent more than S$100,000 and RM21,600 (about S$6,800) on Goh, believing she was his \u201cone and only\u201d, reported Shin Min.<\/p>\n PHOTO: SHIN MIN DAILY NEWS<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n However, he later discovered that Goh had been seeing another man, Gary Yeo, whom she eventually married.<\/p>\n Low claimed he would not have provided the financial benefits had he known they were not in an exclusive relationship.<\/p>\n Goh, however, disputed Low\u2019s version of events.<\/p>\n While she acknowledged receiving financial benefits from him, she said they had never agreed to be in an exclusive romantic relationship.<\/p>\n She argued that the money and other benefits were voluntary gifts or payments<\/a> that Low had chosen to give her.<\/p>\n Low subsequently filed a lawsuit in Singapore in February 2022 to recover the money on the grounds of unjust enrichment.<\/p>\n On July 26, 2022, Liu obtained permission from the court to serve legal court documents on Goh through two locally registered mobile numbers and her social media accounts.<\/p>\n However, she did not respond or make an appearance in court.<\/p>\n As a result, a default judgment was entered against her on Sept 9, 2022.<\/p>\n She was ordered to repay S$100,802.99 and RM21,600 (about S$6,700), plus S$2,781.20 in interest and legal costs.<\/p>\n Low subsequently engaged a Malaysian lawyer to send the judgment to Goh\u2019s registered address in Malaysia, but she still did not respond.<\/p>\n He then initiated cross-border enforcement proceedings in the Malaysian High Court and pursued bankruptcy proceedings against her.<\/p>\n It was only after the bankruptcy proceedings progressed in the second half of 2025 that Goh took steps to contest the judgment.<\/p>\n In April 2026, she formally applied to the Singapore court to set aside the default judgment.<\/p>\n Goh said she had previously blocked Low and therefore did not receive the legal documents he had sent her.<\/p>\n The deputy registrar noted that Goh had taken an excessively long time to respond to the legal proceedings, causing substantial inconvenience to Low.<\/p>\n The court also found it difficult to accept that she remained unaware of the proceedings for nearly four years.<\/p>\n However, it found that there were significant disputes over the nature of their relationship<\/a> and whether Low was entitled to recover the money.<\/p>\n Despite the prolonged delay, the court set aside the default judgment to allow the case to be heard again.<\/p>\n The deputy registrar stressed that this did not mean Low had lost his case, as the question of whether Goh must repay the money remains unresolved.<\/p>\n Have something to say? Join in!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Explore more on these topics<\/p>\n<\/div>\n See something interesting? Contribute<\/a> your story to us.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Scroll to continue reading<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\nSpent over $100,000 during 7-year relationship<\/h2>\n
<\/picture><\/div>
Woman insists they were never in an exclusive relationship<\/h2>\n
Man obtains court judgment after woman fails to respond<\/h2>\n
\n![\"Stomp](\"https:\/\/www.stomp.sg\/assets\/stomp-comment-COLiWNMD.png\")
<\/p>\n