The High Court has dismissed a claim by Chander Agarwal, chief executive and managing director of TCI Express, to recover approximately S$468,090 spent on his former girlfriend during their relationship. The ruling was delivered on September 9 by Senior Judge Lee Seui Kin, who found that the majority of the money was given as gifts rather than loans.

Agarwal had sought repayment of various sums, including S$206,000 charged to credit cards, around S$210,000 for overseas trips, S$17,000 for feng shui services for the woman’s flat, and S$30,000 for an executive education programme at Stanford-NUS. He also claimed an additional S$50,000 was lent to her to clear a debt to a former employer. However, the judge noted that Agarwal failed to establish clear evidence that the money was lent or that the recipient, Felicia Lee, had agreed to repay the funds.

The relationship began in September 2022 after the two met on a flight in 2019 and later connected via social media. Lee, a former flight attendant and later insurance and medical sales agent, and Agarwal’s romance ended in December 2023 amid his suspicions of infidelity. Agarwal filed the lawsuit in March 2024, seeking reimbursement for expenses he said he had advanced during their time together.

Throughout the relationship, Agarwal provided Lee with lavish gifts and paid for numerous expenses without formal agreements on repayment. The court was presented with text messages in which Agarwal told Lee she did not need to repay him and encouraged her to spend freely on taxis, dining, and luxury items. Evidence included offers to use his American Express Centurion Card with assurances that there was no spending limit and statements dismissing any money he spent as loans.

The judge observed Agarwal’s claim conflicted with the informal nature of the exchanges. Agarwal submitted a handwritten agreement purportedly signed by Lee, suggesting some payments were for living expenses, not gifts or loans. However, this document conflicted with the facts and was superseded by a later note from Agarwal stating he would not seek the return of items given out of goodwill.

Senior Judge Lee also rejected Agarwal’s assertion that Lee induced him to provide funds by misrepresenting the nature of their relationship. The court highlighted evidence that Agarwal himself had relations with other women during the relationship, undermining his claim that it was exclusive and genuine.

“Heav’n has no rage, like love to hatred turn’d, nor hell a fury, like a woman scorn’d,” the judge quoted from a 1697 play, noting that such emotions are not limited by gender. The ruling underscored that while informal financial exchanges between romantic partners are common, the absence of any contractual or explicit repayment agreement led the court to treat the money as gifts.