Santoso Winoto v Suseno Winoto & Anor
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Aedit Abdullah |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Asia Law Corporation, CK Tan Law Corporation, Robert Wang & Woo LLP, Chia Kia Boon, Tai Kai Xuan Marcus, Tan Cheng Kiong, Teoh Seok Pin Audrey |
Source: [2023] SGHC 228, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Case Significance
Santoso Winoto v Suseno Winoto and another [2023] SGHC 228 is a grounds of decision of Aedit Abdullah J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 18 August 2023 in Originating Summons No 102 of 2021. At the hearing of further arguments on 24 April 2023, the plaintiff, Mr Santoso Winoto, made an oral application for a stay of implementation and distribution of the sale proceeds of a property at 2 Martin Place, Singapore 237988, disputing the reimbursement claim of the first defendant, his brother Mr Suseno Winoto, for loan repayments, tax and MCST payments. Aedit Abdullah J declined to order a stay, and the plaintiff appealed.
[2023] SGHC 228 explained
Santoso Winoto v Suseno Winoto & Anor ([2023] SGHC 228) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 18 August 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2023] SGHC 228 about?
Santoso Winoto v Suseno Winoto & Anor ([2023] SGHC 228) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Inherent powers — Stay of implementation and distribution in respect of an order for sale”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Summary
Santoso Winoto made an oral application for a stay of implementation and distribution of the sale proceeds of a property at Martin Place, arising from earlier orders in HC/OS 102/2021 that partially allowed his brother Suseno Winoto's reimbursement claim for expenses connected to the sale of jointly held properties. Aedit Abdullah J held it was inappropriate to consider the belated oral application and, in any event, declined to grant a stay, citing the substantial prejudice to the first defendant and the absence of definite timelines. The application was refused.
What was Santoso Winoto v Suseno Winoto [2023] SGHC 228 about?
It was an oral application by the plaintiff Santoso Winoto before Aedit Abdullah J for a stay of implementation and distribution of the sale proceeds of a property at 2 Martin Place, decided on 18 August 2023. The court declined to order a stay.
Did the court grant a stay in [2023] SGHC 228?
No. Aedit Abdullah J declined to order a stay of implementation and distribution of the sale proceeds, which related to the first defendant Suseno Winoto's reimbursement claim for loan repayments, tax and MCST payments; the plaintiff subsequently appealed.
Cases Cited (2)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 228)