Toh Eng Tiah v Angelina Jiang: Gift vs Loan Dispute in Romantic Relationship
In Toh Eng Tiah v Angelina Jiang, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over whether $2 million transferred from the plaintiff, Toh Eng Tiah, to the defendant, Angelina Jiang, during their romantic relationship were gifts or loans. Toh Eng Tiah sought to recover the sum, relying on a Loan Facility Agreement, while Angelina Jiang claimed the sums were gifts and counterclaimed for $335,000 lent to Toh Eng Tiah. The court found some transfers to be gifts and others to be loans, allowing Toh Eng Tiah's claim in part and Angelina Jiang's counterclaim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in part; Judgment for Defendant on counterclaim.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court case between Toh Eng Tiah and Angelina Jiang involving a dispute over whether sums of money transferred were gifts or loans.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Toh Eng Tiah | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim allowed in part | Partial | Lee Hwee Khiam Anthony, Wang Liansheng, Gursharn Singh Gill |
| Angelina Jiang | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim allowed | Won | Mahesh Rai, Stephania Wong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Hwee Khiam Anthony | Bih Li & Lee LLP |
| Wang Liansheng | Bih Li & Lee LLP |
| Gursharn Singh Gill | Bih Li & Lee LLP |
| Mahesh Rai | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Stephania Wong | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff and Defendant were in a romantic relationship.
- Plaintiff transferred sums of money to Defendant during the relationship.
- Plaintiff claimed the transfers were loans, relying on a $2m Loan Agreement.
- Defendant claimed the transfers were gifts, intended for starting a family.
- Parties purchased an ancestral tablet at the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple.
- Plaintiff initially intended to purchase a property at 3H Hillcrest Road.
- Plaintiff later decided to purchase a property at 9 Hillcrest Road.
- Plaintiff's wife discovered the relationship and took steps to prevent loans.
- Defendant became pregnant but later had a miscarriage.
- The $2m Loan Agreement was signed on 24 March 2017.
5. Formal Citations
- Toh Eng Tiah v Jiang Angelina, Suit No 621 of 2017, [2020] SGHC 65
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties met after Plaintiff saw Defendant's advertisement for property sale. | |
| Plaintiff asked Defendant to be his girlfriend. | |
| $200,000 Loan Agreement signed. | |
| Parties entered into a romantic relationship. | |
| Plaintiff expressed desire to start a family with Defendant. | |
| Parties purchased an ancestral tablet at the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple. | |
| Plaintiff decided to purchase property at 3H Hillcrest Road. | |
| Plaintiff decided to purchase 9 Hillcrest Road. | |
| $2m Loan Agreement signed. | |
| Plaintiff asked Defendant for a loan of $150,000. | |
| Defendant discovered she was pregnant. | |
| Plaintiff stopped replying to Defendant's calls and messages. | |
| Defendant received letter from Plaintiff's solicitors rescinding $2m Loan Agreement. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether sums transferred were gifts or loans
- Outcome: The court found some transfers to be gifts and others to be loans, based on the intention of the parties and the circumstances of the transfers.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention to gift
- Delivery of subject-matter
- Revocability of gifts
- Enforceability of loan agreements
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 771
- [1938] MLJ 9
- [2015] 5 SLR 467
- [2002] 12 WLUK 348
- Validity and enforceability of the $2m Loan Agreement
- Outcome: The court found the $2m Loan Agreement to be valid and enforceable, rejecting claims of it being a sham or affected by vitiating factors.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Sham agreement
- Undue influence
- Mistake
- Misrepresentation
- Parol evidence rule
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 1 SLR 170
- [2013] 4 SLR 193
- [2008] 3 SLR (R) 1029
- Whether a Quistclose trust arose
- Outcome: The court found that no Quistclose trust arose because there was no restriction on the Defendant's disposition of the amount advanced.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Specified purpose
- Restriction on disposition
- Intention to create a trust
- Related Cases:
- [1968] 3 WLR 1097
- [2002] 2 AC 164
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Rescission of Contract
- Declaration of Caveatable Interest
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Hiok Tng (in her personal capacity) v Lee Hiok Tng and another (executors and trustees of the estate of Lee Wee Nam, deceased) and others | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 771 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions needed to be satisfied for there to be a valid gift inter vivos. |
| Kumarappa Chettiar Son Of Raman Chettiar of Klang v The Federated Malay States | Unknown | Yes | [1938] MLJ 9 | Malaysia | Cited for the conditions needed to be satisfied for there to be a valid gift inter vivos. |
| Chung Khin Chun K (by her deputy Mok Chiu Ling Hedy) v Yang Yin and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 467 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a donor cannot resile from his position and subsequently seek to convert a gift into a loan. |
| Dr Giuseppe Franco v Dr Elena Sciaroni | English High Court | Yes | [2002] 12 WLUK 348 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a change of heart does not change the legal nature of the transaction. |
| Aero-Gate Pte Ltd v Engen Marine Engineering Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 409 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where there is a representation that the loan will not be enforced, and the recipient relies on the representation and suffers detriment as a result, the borrower may be estopped from asserting his strict legal rights to the sum. |
| Yeung Nga Lai v Tang Chun Lok | Hong Kong District Court | Yes | [2018] HKDC 264 | Hong Kong | Cited for the inherent improbability of creating a creditor-debtor relationship with a husband-to-be when preparing for marriage. |
| CIFG Special Assets Capital I Ltd (formerly known as Diamond Kendall Ltd) v Ong Puay Koon and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 170 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in the interpretation of contracts, it is permissible to consider the relevant context if it is clear, obvious and known to both parties. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the purpose of reference to context is to ascertain the parties’ objective intentions by interpreting the expressions used in their proper context. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR (R) 1029 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that reference to context is admissible not only to resolve ambiguity but so as to establish whether there is ambiguity to begin with. |
| Latham Scott v Credit Suisse First Boston | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 30 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that evidence of a collateral agreement would be inadmissible under s 94(b) of the Evidence Act if it is inconsistent with the terms of the main agreement. |
| Ng Lay Choo Marion v Lok Lai Oi | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 77 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that evidence of a collateral agreement would be inadmissible under s 94(b) of the Evidence Act if it is inconsistent with the terms of the main agreement. |
| Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1968] 3 WLR 1097 | United Kingdom | Cited for the nature of a Quistclose trust. |
| Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and others | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 164 | United Kingdom | Cited for the nature of a Quistclose trust. |
| In re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd | Privy Council | Yes | [1995] 1 AC 74 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the question in every case is whether the parties intended the money to be at the free disposal of the recipient. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gift inter vivos
- Loan Facility Agreement
- Redemption Date
- Quistclose trust
- Sham document
- Vitiating factors
- Parol evidence rule
- Matrimonial home
15.2 Keywords
- gift
- loan
- contract
- agreement
- relationship
- money
- property
- Singapore
- court
- judgment
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Loan Agreement
- Gifts
- Trusts
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Gift Law
- Loan Agreements
- Trust Law
- Evidence Law