Pacific Harbor Advisors Pte Ltd and another v Tiny Tantono (representative of the estate of Lim Susanto, deceased) and another suit
The court held that the EJD is limited to information about the estate's existing property and property which may become available (ie means presently available to the estate); questions about the historical aspect of the deceased's estate are not permitted even if they have a nexus to current assets, and the examination was limited to property from the date of final judgment (28 March 2014) onward.
- Citation
- [2015] SGHCR 3
- Parties
- Judgment Creditor: Pacific Harbor Advisors Pte Ltd; Judgment Creditor: LIM Asia Multi-Strategy Fund Inc; Judgment Debtor: Tiny Tantono (representative of the estate of Lim Susanto, deceased)
- Court
- High Court Registrar
- Jurisdiction
- Singapore
- Judgment Date
- 19 January 2015
- Case Number
- Suit No 795 of 2012 (Summons No 2527 of 2014) and Suit No 863 of 2012 (Summons No 3387 of 2014)
- Procedural Posture
- Examination of Judgment Debtor (ejd) Arising From Debt Recovery Proceedings / Examination Hearing (scope of EJD Questions Determined)
- Outcome
- Judgment creditors were not permitted to ask questions concerning the historical aspect of the deceased's estate; examination limited to property from the date of the final judgment (28 March 2014) onwards.
- Legal Topics
- Examination of Judgment Debtor, Scope of Questioning, Interpretation of Order 48 Rule 1(1), Historical Assets Vs Present Assets
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pacific Harbor Advisors Pte Ltd
Judgment Creditor
LIM Asia Multi-Strategy Fund Inc
Judgment Creditor
Tiny Tantono (representative of the estate of Lim Susanto, deceased)
Judgment Debtor
Procedural Posture
Examination of Judgment Debtor (ejd) Arising From Debt Recovery Proceedings / Examination Hearing (scope of EJD Questions Determined)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a judgment creditor may ask questions about the historical aspect of a deceased judgment debtor's estate during an examination of judgment debtor (EJD)
- 2 How Order 48 rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court should be interpreted — whether present-tense wording limits questions to current property or permits inquiry into past assets with a nexus to current property
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the EJD is limited to information about the estate's existing property and property which may become available (ie means presently available to the estate); questions about the historical aspect of the deceased's estate are not permitted even if they have a nexus to current assets, and the examination was limited to property from the date of final judgment (28 March 2014) onward.
Court Disposition
Judgment creditors were not permitted to ask questions concerning the historical aspect of the deceased's estate; examination limited to property from the date of the final judgment (28 March 2014) onwards.
Orders
- Questions on the historical aspect of the estate disallowed; examination confined to property and means of the estate from 28 March 2014 (date of final judgment) to date.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment