The boutique owner, identified only as Eva, met the defendant, a businessman named Lee, at a Chinese New Year event in 2016.

Lee, who was married to another woman at the time, began an affair with Eva. They broke up in 2017.

During their one-year relationship, Lee allegedly made a promise to marry Eva.

He also asked her to advance him RM153,000 as his company was facing financial difficulties.

According to Eva, Lee said the money would be taken as “investment” into his company.

Eva deposited RM153,000 in several tranches to Lee’s bank account.

The relationship went sour when Eva questioned Lee on his promise of marriage, and the outcome of the investment.

She eventually filed a suit seeking general and special damages from Lee over a breach of promise to marry and a return of the loan.

Judge Priscilla Hemamalini Nadarajan held that Eva had proven on a balance of probabilities that she had advanced Lee the money.

“Her evidence is supported by WeChat messages between her and the defendant (Lee), the online transfer receipts and cash deposit slips.

“She also testified that the defendant only returned RM44,000 out of the RM153,000,” she said.

However, the court ruled that she failed to prove the alleged promise of marriage.

Priscilla pointed out that Lee, in his defence, claimed that Eva gave him the money to purchase beauty equipment.

“However, based on the testimonies of the defendant and witnesses, and documents tendered, I find that the defence is an afterthought and a sham defence,” she said.