Gillman Heoghts High Court Decision

High Court dismisses appeal against Gillman Heights sale
Straits Times - 26 June 2008

Gillman Heights en bloc sale to move ahead following Court's ruling
ChannelNewsAsia - 26 June 2008

Gillman en bloc sale to proceed
Business Times - 26 June 2008.
High Court decision.( free to view for 3 month:
Chang Mei Wah Selena and Others v Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others and Other Matters[2008] SGHC 97
25 June 2008

..
Honorable Choo Han Teck J
.
on TOP/CSC:.
"15. The relevant parliamentary debates show that parliament had intended to peg the requisite majority consent needed for the collective sale (80% or 90%) with the age of the estate/development"

.
"17. The words "TOP" or "CSC" were not mentioned at all during the second and third reading of the 1998 Bill by the Minister or any Member of Parliament. I am of the opinion that the references to TOP or CSC in s 84A(!) by the draftsman were merely used as a method of calculating the age of the development."

.

"18. ...I am of the opinion that the parliamentary intention in respect of s 84A(1) of the LTSA was to allow en bloc sales with 80% majority consent for strata development that are more than 10 years old. It cannot be said that parliament had intended to exclude privatised HUDC estates from collective sale by making references to TOP and CSC in s 84A(1)."

.

"20. If a literal construction was adopted in the present case, the intention of Parliament to allow en-bloc sale of strata developments that are more than 10 years old if they have the requisite majority of 80% would thus be frustrated. The undesirable consequence of the literal interpretation in the present case may have the result that a privatised HUDC estate more than 20 years old cannot participate in a collective sale. I do not think parliament intended this effect because one of the reasons for privatising an HUDC estate is to let it enjoy the benefits of a private estate, including a collective sale."

.

"24. Furthermore, it appears that the CSC and TOP would not avail the appellants even if a strict literal reading of the relevant 84A(1) was adopted.

.....The appellants did not tender a recent strata title plan that reflected the clubhouse.... as a "building comprised n the strata plan". .....the building and the swimming pool, being common property of the Development, would not, in any event be reflected in the strata title plan. "

.

On purposive approach:

.

19: It is important to point out here that s 9A of the Interpretation Act requires that a construction promoting legislative purpose be preferred over one that does not promote purpose or object.....

......I agree, generally, with what was said in [case law here], warning, however, that the phrase "purposive interpretation" should not be used without the court keeping an eye on what purposes are involved and whose purposes are being served. "Purposive interpretation" is not a phrase to be used as a password like "open sesame". For the statute in question, for example, making sure that the safeguards in favour of minority subsidiary proprietors are properly observed is just as purposive as giving the majority owners a right to sell en-bloc."

The specific question in issue, however, was not one concerning specific protection for the minority. It concerned whether a privatised HUDC estate can participate in the benefits of an en-bloc sale if the requisite conditions are met. In this regard, I think that the court should incline towards the affirmative answer than a negative one."

.

The remaining points do not form part of TC's objections.

Time period for en-bloc: 12 months (for 80%) + 12 months (STB application) = 24 months. Time periods may overlap. (my reading).

.

CapitalLand appeal on Gillman deadline

Straits Times-26 July 2008