Wee Cheng Swee v Jo Baby: Loan vs Gift Dispute over Property & Car Purchase

In Wee Cheng Swee Henry v Jo Baby Kartika Polim, before the High Court of Singapore on 2015-05-25, the plaintiff, Wee Cheng Swee Henry, claimed that he made various loans totalling $383,300 to the defendant, Jo Baby Kartika Polim, and sought possession or the value of a car purchased with his funds. The defendant argued the sums were gifts, not loans, motivated by the end of their romantic relationship. The Assistant Registrar entered judgment for the plaintiff on some claims and granted unconditional leave to defend on others. Both parties appealed. The High Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal and allowed the plaintiff’s appeal, making the defendant’s leave to defend conditional on furnishing security for the remainder of the plaintiff's claim. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case involving a dispute over whether funds transferred during a romantic relationship were loans or gifts for property and car purchase. The court granted conditional leave to defend.

1.7 Decision Date

24 May 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Wee Cheng Swee Henry	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Chelva Retnam Rajah, Teng Po Yew
Jo Baby Kartika Polim	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Salem Ibrahim, Iman Ibrahim

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Vinodh Coomaraswamy	Justice	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chelva Retnam Rajah	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Teng Po Yew	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Salem Ibrahim	Salem Ibrahim LLC
Iman Ibrahim	Salem Ibrahim LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiff claimed he made loans to the defendant totaling $383,300 between 2011 and 2013.
Plaintiff sought possession or value of a car he claimed defendant purchased with his money.
Plaintiff and defendant were in a romantic relationship from October 2007 to October 2013.
Defendant claimed the sums were gifts, not loans, due to their relationship breakdown.
Defendant admitted receiving all sums but claimed they were gifts except for $105,000 already repaid.
Plaintiff relied on defendant's email admitting the sums for property were loans.
Plaintiff produced text messages from defendant acknowledging loans.
Defendant sold the car in March 2014 for $108,700.

5. Formal Citations

Wee Cheng Swee Henry v Jo Baby Kartika Polim, Suit No 1186 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 134 and 136 of 2014), [2015] SGHC 140

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-10-01	Romantic relationship began between plaintiff and defendant.
2010-07-01	Break in romantic relationship between plaintiff and defendant.
2011-06-01	Plaintiff and defendant began cohabitating.
2011-03-10	Plaintiff lent money to defendant for Langston Ville unit (claim 1).
2011-06-01	Plaintiff lent money to defendant for Langston Ville unit (claim 1).
2011-07-08	Plaintiff lent money to defendant for Langston Ville unit loan instalments (claim 2).
2012-08-13	Plaintiff lent money to defendant for V on Shenton unit (claim 3).
2012-12-19	Defendant repaid $100,000 to plaintiff.
2013-02-27	Defendant repaid $5,000 to plaintiff.
2013-03-25	Plaintiff advanced $120,000 to defendant to buy a car (claim 7).
2013-07-07	Plaintiff lent $5,000 to defendant as a personal loan (claim 4).
2013-08-21	Plaintiff lent $5,000 to defendant as a personal loan (claim 5).
2013-10-09	Plaintiff lent $3,000 to defendant as a personal loan (claim 6).
2013-10-14	Defendant sent email to plaintiff regarding loans and car.
2013-10-23	Defendant underwent ceremonial marriage in Jakarta.
2013-10-26	Plaintiff and defendant communicated as though their romantic relationship was ongoing.
2013-10-26	Plaintiff and defendant communicated as though their romantic relationship was ongoing.
2013-10-26	Plaintiff and defendant communicated as though their romantic relationship was ongoing.
2013-10-01	Romantic relationship ended between plaintiff and defendant.
2013-12-01	Suit filed by plaintiff against defendant.
2014-03-06	Defendant sold the car for $108,700.
2014-04-04	Assistant Registrar entered judgment against defendant for $105,000.
2014-06-18	Defendant repaid plaintiff $5,000 (claim 4).
2015-05-25	High Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal and allowed the plaintiff’s appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court considered whether the advances were loans or gifts.
- Category: Substantive
Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court applied the principles governing an application for summary judgment.
- Category: Procedural
Conditional Leave to Defend
- Outcome: The court granted the defendant conditional leave to defend claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, the condition being that she furnish security to the plaintiff for the amount of $398,300.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Possession of Property

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Detinue

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 32	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a defendant will not be given leave to defend based on mere assertions alone in an application for summary judgment.
Microsoft Corporation v Electro-Wide Limited	N/A	Yes	[1997] FSR 580	N/A	Cited for the standard to be applied in determining whether a defendant has a real or bona fide defence in relation to the issues.
Ritzland Investment Pte Ltd v Grace Management & Consultancy Services Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 1342	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court will enter judgment against the defendant only if the plaintiff has satisfied the court that there is no reasonable probability that the defendant has a real or bona fide defence.
Hilti Far East Pte Ltd v Tan Hup Guan	N/A	Yes	[1991] 1 SLR(R) 711	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the owner of a car at law is the person who funds its purchase and not the person who is registered as its owner.
Mohd Zain bin Abdullah v Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 446	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court’s discretion under Order 14 Rule 4(1) of the Rules of Court is unqualified and widely framed.
Re Ford; ex parte the Trustee	N/A	Yes	[1900] 2 QB 211	England	Cited for the principle that security which is provided pursuant to court order is security in the true sense of the word.
Cheng Lip Kwong v Bangkok Bank Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 941	Singapore	Cited for the principle that security which is provided pursuant to court order is security in the true sense of the word.
MV Yorke Motors (a firm) v Edwards	House of Lords	Yes	[1982] 1 WLR 444	England	Cited for the proper approach to determining the quantum of security to require of a defendant who is to be granted conditional leave to defend.
Anglo-Eastern Trust Limited & Anor v Roohallah Kermanshahchi	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] EWCA Civ 198	England and Wales	Cited regarding the defendant being put on notice that the plaintiff would seek an order for conditional leave to defend if he did not succeed in securing judgment.
International Bank of Singapore Ltd v Bader	N/A	Yes	[1989] 1 MLJ 214	Malaysia	Followed the approach in Yorke Motors.
Citibank NA v Lim Soo Peng and Another	High Court	Yes	[2004] SGHC 266	Singapore	Followed the approach in Yorke Motors.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Order 14 r 3(1)	Singapore
Order 14 r 7	Singapore
Order 14 r 4(1)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Loan
Gift
Summary Judgment
Conditional Leave to Defend
Romantic Relationship
Property Purchase
Car Purchase
Admission
Security
Triable Issue

15.2 Keywords

loan
gift
property
car
summary judgment
singapore
contract
relationship

16. Subjects

Contract Dispute
Loan Agreement
Civil Litigation
Property Law

17. Areas of Law

Contract Law
Civil Procedure
Summary Judgment