Santoso Winoto v Suseno Winoto & Anor

Facts

Santoso Winoto, the plaintiff, applied in HC/OS 102/2021 for an order for sale of three properties held in his name, that of his brother Suseno Winoto (the first defendant) and that of his ex-wife Linda Santosa (the second defendant). On 18 March 2022 Aedit Abdullah J gave the first defendant conduct of the sales, with the properties to be sold one after another, and directed that the expenses of sale be borne according to the parties' shares. By 24 April 2023 only one property had been sold.

On 16 February 2023 the judge partly allowed the first defendant's claim to be reimbursed for loan repayments, tax and management corporation payments he said he had made for the sold property. At further arguments on 24 April 2023, the plaintiff made an oral application to stay the implementation and distribution of the sale proceeds. He argued that the money the first defendant had spent came from their late father's estate, or from a joint account of the two brothers holding proceeds of another property registered in the plaintiff's sole name, and so was not legitimate money that could be reimbursed. He relied on a completion account, joint account statements for December 2013 and January 2014, and a January 2018 statement of the defendants' joint account showing $3,411,307.45. The first defendant said the allegations were baseless, cherry-picked and outside the scope of the case, and the second defendant supported him. The plaintiff appealed the refusal of a stay, and these are the grounds.

Issues

1. Whether it was appropriate for the court to consider the plaintiff's oral application at all.
2. Whether the court should stay the implementation and distribution of the sale proceeds.
3. What principles govern a stay of implementation and distribution of an order for sale.

Holding

The court declined to order a stay of implementation and distribution and refused the plaintiff's oral application. It held that the application was not appropriate for consideration in OS 102 and that, even on the merits, it would have refused a stay.

Reasoning

The plaintiff did not dispute that the first defendant had actually spent the sums claimed on the expenses of sale. His complaint about where the money came from was a separate dispute needing its own proceedings, not part of an order-for-sale case. He had also delayed: he filed no appeal against the March 2022 order and brought no separate claim, raising the point only at distribution, which put his good faith in doubt.

As there was no known reported local case on such a stay, the court set out the principles. Its inherent power to give consequential directions, reflected in O 92 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2014 and assumed by O 45 r 11, includes staying its own orders; a stay of implementation and distribution is akin to a stay of execution and lies in the court's discretion. Relevant factors include whether the unsuccessful party has, or credibly intends to have, recourse by appeal or separate proceedings, the chances of success, the reasons for the stay, and the prejudice to the successful party. The court considered the same power exists under the Rules of Court 2021.

Applied here, every factor weighed against a stay. No separate proceedings existed or were signalled. Three documents were a scant basis for halting the sale. The first defendant had substantial assets in Singapore, so any later claim could be enforced. A stay of undefined length, on allegations needing evidence and cross-examination, raised late on 28 February 2023, would have seriously prejudiced him.

From the judgment