Supreme Court Judgments for Horizon Towers.
.
Concerning allowing the Buyers lawyers to participate in the proceedings
Decision 1 found on lawnet for a search fee
.
Concerning the STB decision to throw out the sale on a technicality.
Decision 2 found on lawnet for a search fee
.
Justice Choo Han Teck wrote in his judgment
.
'Parliament is telling the Board very categorically, that the Board has the power to allow amendments'
.
'it is the duty of the Board to consider whether there was any error that was sufficiently material or substantive to affect its decision whether to grant or refuse the application.'
.
First, it would have to establish the nature of the error, whether it be typographical (a typo), clerical, intentional (perhaps there's a legal word for this - say they knowingly include signatures that are not the true owners etc), or even criminal.
.
"If an error or omission had caused prejudice to the minority, the Board may, in the exercise of it's discretion, dismiss the application".
.
After mulling it over for a while, I have come to the conclusion that this ruling isn't, afterall, a complete closure of a very valid and important avenue of objection for the minority. If prejudice to the minority can be proven then the STB has to consider the technicality to be a serious one. Far from disallowing any technicality to be ignored in its entirety, it now has to be examined with regard to it's prejudicial nature. A fact far more damaging if proven to be so.
.
When you mentioned "highly unfair" do you know you can b charged with contempt of court??
ReplyDeleteYou must remember whatever your opinion is, the MAJORITY (more than 80%) hve decided for the enbloc. And like you, I am sure many of them felt that the price should be higher. But unlike you, they are GENTLEMEN and WOMEN. Once you hv sign an agreement, you stick to it and honour it, no matter what. In democratic Singapore, the voice of the majority prevails. Also, we abide by the rule of law and whatever that the courts decide. The majority wants the enbloc process to be completed fast, its people like you who delay things for everybody. The majority owners will bear on people like you any cost of any delay in the completion of the enbloc.
ReplyDeleteSo, appealing to the STB is a dishonourable course of action? If you choose to demonise the minority in this matter you are also implying that the government must be wrong in establishing this tribunal in the first place. A minority owner paying a visit to his/her MP in a meet-the-people session will not be told "sign, la!', instead he will be advised of his respective rights and urged to appeal to the STB, preferably with a lawyer. Such was the advice given by Mah Bow Tan, was he being dishonourable? The 80% might prevail in the end, but as Justice Choo in his HT judgment said "if the majority succeed it is not because it is simply the majority".
ReplyDeleteBTW; no application has been made to the STB yet and the delay is 100% your end.
Thankfully, there are still some checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of power and reign in the bullies of society, making them accountable for their actions. If the 'might is right' mentality were given free reign then society would descend into a bitter battle between those who want expediency (and money)at all costs and the moral right. There are many who view the enbloc as a foul piece of legislation, destroying people's homes and their very sense of belonging. Once greed comes in the door, loyalty and honour go out the window. You speak of honour only in the form of a signed document, well, honour encompasses a much grander ideal. Your neighbour is dying of cancer, is it honourable to evict him from his home in the last few months of his life? Your neighbour is old and frail, is it honourable to take away all his support network and toss him out on the street? Your neighbour spent 20 years putting his hard earned savings into his home, is it honourable to take all that away and force him to downgrade? I'm sorry, sir, as long as there is not 100% agreement to this enbloc, you are guilty of abetting in compulsory acquisition of other peoples homes and eviction. Not something to be proud of, I think.
ReplyDeleteThe minority should no go against the wish of the majority. Even amon the majority, there are emotional and sentimental feeling. We feel a sense of lost too. But we must be practical in facing reality. What the minority should do is to take it up with the agent (I remember there was such a thing as buying back a new re-developed property at preferential prices or one-to-one exchange for a new apartment). But to cause a delay or sabotage the majority's enbloc wishes is the not the way things should be done.
ReplyDelete“The minority should not go against the wishes of the majority" - why ever not if you perceive them to be wrong. Indeed it is imperative that a few stand up against the many, we rely on such people to steer society away from totalitarianism and fascism. Singapore would do better to nurture such people instead of trampling all over them.
ReplyDeleteComing back to our small matter of enbloc though, you feel it is better to be practical in the face of reality; not to delay and sabotage etc. I keep making the same refrain; the minority have not caused this delay, the SC have not applied to the STB for whatever reason, we do not know why and we too are sitting around waiting for their next move, just like you.
Our appeal is within our rights set out by Parliament. This IS the right and proper ‘way things should be done’; an impartial governmental tribunal as watchdog, overlooking and certifying that all is in order before granting the sale. Imagine the abuse and corruption that could occur if such multimillion dollar deals were not regulated, not held up to inspection! It is not a question of “what the majority wants, the majority gets”; the whole exercise of enbloc is procedural and there is good reason for having these strict provisions in law. The majority will just have to bide its time and pray their unelected and largely invisible representatives have done a good job.
“Buying back a new developmental property at a preferential price” –
Hmm, they buy my large 1700 sqft home for a paltry $263 per sq ft.
They ask me then to wait 4 years
- rent of $2000/mth x 4 yrs = $96,000
- buy back a 1200sqft apartment from them at $700 per sq ft.
Are you crazy?!! That’s the worst deal of the century!
“1 for 1 deal”-
A figment of your imagination.
In 2nd comment, it was stated that "many of them felt that the price should be higher", does it suugest that the formal valuation is much higher that the our reserve price?
ReplyDeleteCan someone annouce the formal valuation price? I am sure it is done now.
The formal valuation will undoubtably parrot their informal valuation done in 2005. If it differs substantailly then they are in trouble. Here is a former written Board decision on an enbloc sale called Seedevi -
ReplyDeleteThe Board further elaborated by stating:
A price obtained after proper steps have been taken is strong evidence of the true value of the property. On the other hand, if it were proved that the price is substantially below the true value, this would be some evidence that proper steps were not taken. For example, a rushed and inadequately marketed and advertised sale, which results in a price below a valuation price would not be one done in good faith. Any evidence of collusion between the marketing agent and the purchaser would taint the sale transaction beyond redemption.
So, for the SC to produce a formal valuation endosing the original is essential. Don't expect anything else.
I've given up hope on the success of the enloc of our TC.The SC seem to be lying low and failed to provide any information to the majority owners on the progress of the enbloc.Ive sent some email to them enquiring about the current status and getting no respond from them. My advise to them, be transparent and open as ownwers have to make plan for alternative accomodation.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that the SC can produce the formal valuation endosing the original now.
ReplyDeleteI remembered that in the EOGM on 21 Jul, the Property Sales Director mentioned that the reserve price (as at Dec 05) was a 2-years (Dec 07) projected price and the property price in Tampines area hardly moved (as at Jul 07) since 2005.
He supported his arguments by showing some private property transactions in Tampines area.
But the latest property transactions (as at Sep 07) confirmed that the property price moved at least 30% in Bedok and Tampines area. For example, 99 years properties in Bebok area moved from $400+ psf to 600+ psf.
True.
ReplyDeleteCheck out my link to the URA website on private property transactions in the last 12 months.
But they will produce a Valuation endorsing the informal one non the less.
I think they may have trouble getting a reputable company to produce a valuation endorsing the informal one as the valuator's reputation will be tarnished since numbers are published openly in URA website.
ReplyDelete