Background
The parties began a romantic relationship in June 2023. The claimant transferred money to the defendant through PayNow and cash, and allowed him to use her credit cards. She said the advances were loans, made after he represented that he would repay her once issues with his bank account were resolved. The defendant said they were gifts made out of love and affection.
After the relationship deteriorated, the defendant signed agreements and an acknowledgment of debt. The claimant sued for the outstanding sums. The defendant alleged that the documents were procured by duress, actual undue influence, and unconscionability.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Wong Li Kok held that the advances were loans, not gifts. Although a romantic relationship ordinarily gives rise to a presumption against an intention to create legal relations, the contemporaneous evidence rebutted that presumption: the defendant repeatedly promised repayment in WhatsApp messages, made partial repayments, and agreed to repay credit-card spending.
The court accepted $268,794 in bank transfers and cash advances, and $87,322.40 in credit-card spending, interest, and fees. After deducting a $35,000 repayment, the defendant owed $321,116.40. The court rejected the defendant’s vitiating-factor defences: allegations of threats by the claimant’s brother were unsupported, the psychological letter carried no weight because its author was not called, and the defendant had legal advice and adequate time to consider the acknowledgment.
Key Takeaways
- Financial arrangements between romantic partners can be legally binding where objective evidence shows an expectation of repayment.
- Repeated repayment promises, records of advances, and partial repayments can rebut the domestic-social presumption against legal relations.
- Duress, actual undue influence, and unconscionability require proof; unsupported allegations and untested expert letters will not suffice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that courts will examine the parties’ actual communications and conduct rather than rely solely on the personal nature of their relationship. It also confirms that credit-card expenditure incurred for a partner may be recoverable where the evidence establishes an agreement to repay.