Background:
Li Wen Tan, the appellant, appealed a decision dismissing his claims against his parents, Kai Tan and Hong Jiao, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. He sought to be added to the title of their home and a share of rental income, claiming he made cash payments based on an agreement.

Legal Arguments/Issues:
The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in three areas:

1. Errors in Fact: He alleged the judge wrongly interpreted the purpose of his payments and misjudged the evidence about the agreement.
2. Evidentiary Rulings: He contended that the judge improperly excluded a letter and testimony that would show his payments contributed to his parents' mortgage.
3. Unjust Enrichment: He claimed the judge failed to properly assess the deprivation he suffered and the benefit to his parents, lacking a legal reason to justify their enrichment.

Decision:
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no errors in law or palpable errors in fact. It found that the appellant failed to establish the existence of a contract or satisfy the elements of unjust enrichment. The judge ruled that there was a legitimate reason for the parents to manage his funds, especially when he was a minor.

Costs:
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents, Kai Tan and Hong Jiao, following the ordinary course of litigation, though the specific amount of costs was not detailed in the decision.