S'porean man sues M'sian ex-girlfriend for over S$100,000 in relationship 'financial benefits'

Since 2022, a man has been taking legal action to seek over S$100,000 in restitution from his ex-girlfriend he believed he would marry, but was allegedly unfaithful to him.

Low, a Singaporean, claimed he gave Goh, a Malaysian, substantial financial benefits during the seven years they dated, totalling more than S$100,000 and RM21,600 (S$6,800).

They included sums to pay for her business ventures, her insurance premiums, and what he said was to be the couple's matrimonial home in Malaysia, according to a court judgement dated Oct. 5.

He argued that he made these payments believing that they were in a committed and exclusive relationship.

However, he later realised Goh had not been committed, and had allegedly instead been "falsely leading him on" because she wanted his money.

Goh argued that they were never in such a relationship.

Although she acknowledged that she received the financial benefits, she maintained that they were voluntary payments and gifts that Low chose to give her.

The relationship and its expenses

The couple met in 2008 while they were employed in the Singapore branch of the same company.

By the end of 2009, they were committed to a long-term romantic relationship, according to Low.

They dated from 2009 to 2015, when Low found out that Goh was in a relationship with another man, whom she later married.

During their relationship, he made payments towards her insurance premiums, personal expenses, and business ventures.

He also bought her a jewellery set intended as an engagement gift, and gave her access to a Malaysian savings account from which she made withdrawals.

He further claimed that he transferred a total of S$31,510 to her to purchase their eventual matrimonial home in Malaysia, and she held this sum and any proceeds from it on trust for him.

Was he mistaken?

Low's case mainly relies on his argument that he mistakenly believed Goh was committed to an exclusive relationship with him.

According to him, his expenditures were made under this alleged mistake.

He said that he was “not a high-income earner”, and would not have spent over S$100,000 on her if he had "believed she was simply a casual friend or even a non-exclusive romantic partner".

He added that he bought the jewellery set at Goh's request, after both of them discussed marriage and having children.

As for Goh, she argued that "at no point was the relationship defined as exclusive", and that Low's belief was "merely his own subjective assumption".

A default judgement

When Low first filed the lawsuit in February 2022, Goh did not participate in the proceedings, so a judgement in default was entered against her in September 2022.

Under the default judgement, she was ordered to pay Low S$100,802.99 and RM21,600 (S$6,800), along with interests and legal costs of S$2,781.20.

Low engaged Malaysian solicitors to enforce this, serving the papers to her at her registered residential address in Johor Bahru, but she did not respond.

He eventually commenced bankruptcy proceedings against Goh in Malaysia, and this finally prompted her to seek to challenge the judgement in Singapore.

In April 2026, she applied to set aside the default judgement in Singapore, claiming that she "did not receive the documents purportedly served" on her as she had blocked Low on her Malaysian number.

However, Deputy Registrar Lewis Tan pointed out that the papers were sent by Low's solicitors, and they used several means to serve them to her besides WhatsApp, including her Facebook and Instagram accounts.

Tan argued that Goh was aware of Singapore proceedings but only acted when the threat of enforcement became real.

The judgement also noted that Low said she only saw Goh occasionally from 2009 to 2013, and stopped seeing him in 2013 after meeting another man, whom she married in 2015.

"However, this timeline does not cohere with the benefits conferred by [Goh], which began in 2009 but increased from 2013, after she had supposedly stopped seeing him."

Case reopened

Ultimately, Tan said that the present evidence favours Low's claims, as it does not suggest he had reason to doubt the exclusivity of their relationship.

But that is not the end of the inquiry, Tan said.

He argued that alternative conventional causes of action were likely available to Low, undermining his case for unjust enrichment.

Despite Goh's "inordinate delay" in applying to set aside the default judgement, Tan also pointed out Low's own delay as he waited more than eight years after the last alleged transfer to Goh before commencing proceedings.

The alleged transfers for purchasing the Malaysian property were made in tranches, the last in December 2013, but Low only took legal action more than eight years later in February 2022.

By that time, memories have faded, and Low himself was unable to produce contemporaneous evidence of the transfers, some of which were made in cash, Tan said.

He believes Goh raised substantial defences that should be properly determined at trial, and so decided to set aside the default judgement entirely and to hear both parties' cases again at trial.