Man fails in claim for four luxury watches he alleged were gifts from father-in-law

 A man who sued his then father-in-law for the return of four luxury watches has lost the case.

The older man, Mr Lam King Keow, had passed the watches to Mr Pua Wen Jin when the younger man was married to his daughter.

After the marriage broke down, Mr Pua’s estranged wife gave the watches – a Hublot Big Bang, a Rolex Submariner, a Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Eight Days and a Corum Bubble – back to her father.

Mr Pua argued that he was the rightful owner of the watches because they had been gifted to him by Mr Lam.

However, Mr Lam, who has an extensive collection of about 200 watches, said he had never intended to part with ownership of the watches.

Mr Lam contended that he had passed the watches to Mr Pua because he thought it would be a “nice gesture” to let his then son-in-law wear them.

In a written judgment on March 30, a district judge dismissed Mr Pua’s claim.

District Judge Jonathan Ng said Mr Pua has not proved that Mr Lam had intended to relinquish the watches at the time of the alleged gifting.

Thus, Mr Pua does not have the right to immediate possession of the watches.

Although the judge ruled in Mr Lam’s favour, he disagreed with the defendant’s portrayal of Mr Pua as an opportunistic former son-in-law.

Judge Ng noted that the trial hinged on how the parties differently perceived the passing of the watches to Mr Pua.

The judge said the evidence suggested that Mr Pua genuinely believed Mr Lam had gifted the watches to him.

“Unfortunately for the claimant, however, the relevant legal test depends not on his belief but on the defendant’s intention,” said Judge Ng.

During the trial, Mr Pua presented text messages from a family group chat in which he thanked his in-laws for the watches, as well as messages between him and his former wife, in which she used the word “your” to refer to the watches.

But Judge Ng said these were casual day-to-day messages that should not be read with a fine-tooth comb and were ambiguous about Mr Lam’s intentions.

He said these messages could also be used to support Mr Lam’s contention.

He also pointed out that Mr Lam has acknowledged that he had given a fifth watch, a Panerai Luminor, to Mr Pua as a wedding gift.

This showed Mr Lam did distinguish between the watches that he had gifted and the watches that he had simply passed to a family member, said the judge.

According to the judgment, Mr Pua had received the five watches on separate occasions between June 2013 and January 2017 while he was married to Mr Lam’s daughter Cheryl Lam.

The watches were passed to Mr Pua through Ms Lam.

The couple’s marriage started to break down towards the end of 2022.

On Dec 5, 2022, Ms Lam moved out of their home – a flat jointly owned by her parents – with their two children and domestic helper.

On the same day, Mr Lam, through his lawyers, gave Mr Pua one week’s notice to move out of the flat. 

While Mr Pua was packing his belongings, he discovered that Ms Lam had locked the master bedroom.

He did not have the key to the room, where all the five watches were kept.

It turned out that Ms Lam had given the watches back to her father when she moved out.

On Feb 24, 2023, Mr Pua’s then lawyers sent a letter to Mr Lam’s lawyers demanding the return of all five watches.

Four days later, on Feb 28, Mr Lam’s lawyers replied that Mr Lam was the owner of four watches – the Rolex, the Jaeger-LeCoultre, the Hublot and the Corum – and these did not belong to Mr Pua.

The Panerai was returned to Mr Pua at some point.

On April 18, 2023, Mr Pua filed a civil suit in the State Courts, seeking an order for the four watches to be handed over to him.

But Mr Lam said he remained the rightful owner of the watches.

He testified that he would “rotate” the watches among family members to keep their mechanisms going.

However, this did not involve giving, in the ownership sense, the watch in question to the family member.

This was corroborated by Ms Lam, who said the “family culture” was that “nobody owns the watches”.

Judge Ng said he was cognisant that Mr Lam’s evidence could very well be self-serving and that Ms Lam’s testimony should also be viewed with circumspection.

However, the judge said, there is no other evidence that casts doubt on or rebuts this aspect of the evidence.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

WP disciplinary panel completes investigations into party chief Pritam Singh Expectations for AGM and reporting timeliness