Chander Agarwal v Lee Xiu Hui Felicia
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 7–13 September 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Lee Seiu Kin |
| Charges / claim | Trusts, Restitution, Tort, Contract |
| Counsel | Dhillon & Panoo LLC, I.R.B. Law LLP, Jasjeet Singh s/o Harjindar Singh, Mohamed Baiross, Sharifah Nabilah Binte Syed Omar, Sunil Singh Panoo |
Source: [2026] SGHC 185, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Chander Agarwal v Lee Xiu Hui Felicia [2026] SGHC 185 was decided in the General Division of the High Court by Lee Seiu Kin SJ on 9 September 2026. The claimant, chief executive officer of TCI Express Limited, claimed that various sums totalling $468,090.00 spent on the defendant between October 2022 and December 2023, during their romantic relationship, were interest-free loans. The issues were whether the sums were gifts or loans, whether a handwritten agreement evidenced loans, and whether the defendant was liable in deceit, under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, in unjust enrichment or as an institutional constructive trustee. The court found the sums were gifts, found the defendant did not make the alleged representations, dismissed all claims and ordered the claimant to pay costs at the standard rate.
[2026] SGHC 185 explained
Chander Agarwal v Lee Xiu Hui Felicia ([2026] SGHC 185) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 9 September 2026. It is categorised under Trusts, Restitution, Tort, and Contract. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGHC 185 about?
Chander Agarwal v Lee Xiu Hui Felicia ([2026] SGHC 185) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Trusts — Constructive trusts”, “Restitution — Unjust enrichment”, “Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit”, and “Contract — Intention to create legal relations”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 185 consider?
The judgment refers to Misrepresentation Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2026] SGHC 185?
Within this corpus, [2026] SGHC 185 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard a claim by Chander Agarwal against his former girlfriend, Lee Xiu Hui Felicia, for $468,090.00 that he said were interest-free loans spent on her during their relationship. The court found the sums were gifts, held the handwritten agreement was not shown to be signed by her and had in any event been superseded by a promissory note dated 26 May 2023, and rejected the misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims. The claims were dismissed with costs to the defendant.
What was Chander Agarwal v Lee Xiu Hui Felicia about ([2026] SGHC 185)?
The claimant sought repayment of $468,090.00 spent on his former girlfriend during their relationship, saying the sums were interest-free loans. She said they were gifts out of love and affection. The General Division of the High Court dismissed his claims.
Why did the claim fail in [2026] SGHC 185?
The court found the disputed sums were gifts, held it was unsafe to conclude the defendant signed the handwritten agreement, noted a promissory note dated 26 May 2023 superseded it, and found no misrepresentation, failure of basis or recognised unconscionability.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (14)
Cited By (1)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 185)