• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Dr William Tan loses lawsuit

SwineHunter

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
540
Points
0

Jul 26, 2010

Dr William Tan loses lawsuit

<!-- by line --> By Selina Lum
<!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar -->
ln-sg-dr.jpg


Dr Tan (above) ame up the eventual winner in the legal battle with Dr Stephanie Chee Jok Heng. He succeeded in getting back money from a property investment he had made with Dr Chee, a former management consultant who is now a housewife. -- ST PHOTO: ASHLEIGH SIM

<!-- story content : start --> PROMINENT paraplegic athlete William Tan Kian Meng has lost a lawsuit brought against him by a woman who sued him for the return of money, most of it loans she had given him over a six-year period. But Dr Tan, 53, came up the eventual winner in the legal battle with Dr Stephanie Chee Jok Heng, 51.

He succeeded in getting back money from a property investment he had made with Dr Chee, a former management consultant who is now a housewife.
Justice Tay Yong Kwang handed victories to both sides in a written judgment on Monday. He also ordered each party to bear their own legal costs. The net result: Dr Tan is entitled to get back over $176,000 from Dr Chee.

The pair met in 1999 while Dr Chee was general manager of a charity and Dr Tan, who has taken part in many fund-raising races, was a third-year medical student. Last year, Dr Chee sued Dr Tan for more than $400,000 - about $260,000 of which she lent him and some $150,000 for which she said he had agreed to indemnify her for losses from the sale of an apartment at One Tree Lodge.

Dr Tan, who is single, claimed that he was in an intimate relationship with Dr Chee, a divorced mother of three, and the payments were 'love gifts' - which she flatly denied. He also contended that she had waived her right to the money when she turned down his previous offers to repay her.
In his judgment, Justice Tay rejected Dr Tan's 'love gift' contention.

The judge said he would 'hesitate' to conclude that they had been in a romantic relationship. The judge noted that Dr Chee, represented by Mr Andrew Hanam, did not initiate any of the payments. Rather, Dr Tan was always the one who asked for financial assistance, including requesting for a supplementary credit card in 2000.


[email protected]

Read the full story in Tuesday's edition of The Straits Times.


 
Back
Top