Nov 28, 2014
Oct 23, 2014
Jul 21, 2014
Jul 16, 2014
Gilstead Court Committee
The Straits Times
Friday, Mar 28, 2014
SINGAPORE - Infighting has intensified within the Gilstead Court sale committee involved in the stalled $150.2 million sale of the Newton freehold condominium en bloc.
Two committee members are trying to carry on with the sale without its treasurer in an escalating dispute over penalty clauses in the collective sale agreement.
In a new twist, committee secretary Warren Khoo and chairman Sally Ching are seeking to remove treasurer Choo Liang Haw as a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit related to the sale.
They want Mr Choo made a defendant instead, according to court documents obtained by The Straits Times.
They cited growing division over an offer by Dillenia Land, a unit of developer Tuan Sing Holdings, to pay up to $135,000 to help relieve dissenting owners of their liability under the penalty clauses so that they would withdraw their objections to the sale.
Meanwhile, the dissenting owners, represented by Mr Adrian Tan of Stamford Law, have asked the court to put an end to the "ill-fated" sale, saying they "find themselves dragged into a dispute that is farcical in the extreme".
The three members, part of a seven-person committee, claimed damages of about $15 million last October against Dillenia, alleging that the offer was a breach of contract and contravened "illicit payments (provisions) of the tender terms".
But a rift has since developed.
At issue is a bid by four committee members, including Mr Choo, to try to get Dillenia exempted from liability for having made the offer and to waive penalties against the dissenters just days before Mr Khoo was to have filed the application for sale approval to the High Court on Oct 16 last year.
Despite that, Mr Khoo said he initially retained Mr Choo as co-plaintiff in hopes of a "possible resolution of the difference".
But he changed his mind after Mr Choo on Nov 9 signed a requisition for an extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) to pass a resolution giving power to the committee to waive the penalty clauses.
"You cannot have plaintiffs in any proceedings holding contradictory views," Mr Khoo said in court papers.
But Mr Choo said Mr Khoo refused to convene the EOGM, even when faced with a requisition from some owners. In doing so, Mr Khoo was "trying to prevent the general body of owners from expressing their view" on the penalty clauses.
Mr Khoo, however, argued that the offer has rendered the committee "dysfunctional", pitting those who seek to "uphold the principle of transparency and equality of treatment of owners" against "the pragmatists who mistakenly see these offers as a quick and harmless way of getting the sale through, never mind the principles".
Dillenia director Chong Chou Yuen, in court documents, objected to Mr Khoo's allegations that the offer was improper.
"They were made to all of the owners (consenting and non-consenting) collectively and openly through the collective sale committee", as well as to Strata Titles Board board members, he said.
Mr Choo agreed. "There is no evidence that any of the (dissenting) owners received any illicit payments from anybody."
Instead, the penalty clauses were aimed at "pressurising" the owners to sign the agreement "under threat of penalty", Mr Dominic Lim, a dissenting owner, said in court papers.
He pointed to "irregularities" stemming from the committee's refusal to use a law firm for the transaction or to use a property agent for marketing, resulting in a "drastically limited market" and "hobbling" the sale effort.
Mr Lim noted that the suit, which sought to have the penalty clauses declared valid and enforceable, was not served on Dillenia or the dissenting owners for many months. Instead, the matter was kept in abeyance, he said.
"The result of such delay is that the matter was kept hanging over our heads for many months," he said.
Furthermore, there are "serious questions" over whether the suit is supported by the majority of the committee, given that four members opposed the penalty clauses.
In seeking to strike out the suit, Mr Lim said the dissenting sellers found it "unpalatable that just because others would like to make more money from their own units, (the dissenters) have to surrender their homes in Gilstead Court".
- See more at: http://business.asiaone.com/news/rift-widens-gilstead-court-sale-committee/page/0/1#sthash.Bm9rUYxj.dpuf
Jun 17, 2014
Jun 3, 2014
Hougang North Ave 2 (N7) HUDC PRIVATISED
Money not the motive
This article was first published on May 31, 2014.
SINGAPORE - The 60-year-old retiree has lived in three different HUDC estates and hoped that his current home at Hougang Ave 2 would be his last one.
But it might not be anymore.
Last week, HDB announced that the estate has received the required 75 per cent support for privatisation.
This gives the 336-unit estate, which consists of maisonette units in high-rise blocks and four-storey walk-up apartments, the chance of an en bloc deal.
The estate, built in 1988, is the latest HUDC estate to be privatised.
The last HUDC estate, Braddell View, is currently garnering support for privatisation. (See report below.)
Now that privatisation has been confirmed, are residents there excited about a potential windfall in the future?
After all, the record price was $1.065 million for a 157 sqm maisonette in November 2012, according to Housing Board data. (See figures above.)
But the three-time HUDC resident, who wanted to be known only as Mr Ho, had voted against privatisation.
He said: "I didn't buy this place for investment. I was hoping to live here for the rest of my life."
Mr Ho moved to the Hougang Ave 2 HUDC estate three years ago, after his previous flat at Minton Rise, also in Hougang, went en bloc.
He had previously lived in Shunfu Ville, which was privatised last year but not yet sold collectively.
He added that he did not think that the estate would be privatised when he first bought it. He had been drawn to its price and size - $480,000 for a 156 sqm flat
WILLING TO SELL
But a 70-year-old resident who lives in a maisonette on the sixth storey, said he would be willing to sell if offered between $1.1 million to $1.2 million.
"I'm getting older so it may be a problem in the future. I have to climb upstairs to my bedroom," said the retiree, who wanted to be known only as Mr Sim.
He had paid $368,000 for the 157 sqm unit in 1993 and he lives there with his wife, daughter and her family.
Property agent Sherry Tang said that prices in Hougang Ave 2 are unlikely to soar even after privatisation.
She brokered a $1 million deal for a maisonette in the estate last year and expects prices to stay in this region.
The senior sales director from DTZ Property said: "The market has been quiet and there have been slower transactions.
"Buyers are limited by the total debt servicing ratio.
UNPOPULAR LOCATION
"After privatisation, foreigners will be allowed to buy units, but it won't be popular with them because of the location."
Ms Tang added that the demand for HUDC units in Hougang is not as competitive as that in nearby Potong Pasir and Serangoon.
Mr Winston Chong, 51, chairman of the pro tem committee behind the privatisation, said that profit was not their intention.
"Most of us are happy in this place and we wanted the chance to manage our own estate," said the financial adviser, who has lived there for four years.
Housewife Lucy Chan, 75, who has been living in the estate for the past 15 years, is one of them.
She lives in a 151 sqm, three-bedroom apartment on the third storey and hopes to continue living in the estate.
Madam Chan said: "You won't find such a big unit elsewhere and it's very private because I have no neighbours on the same storey.
"But I hope a lift will be built soon because my knees are getting weak."
This article was first published on May 31, 2014.
Feb 28, 2014
Jan 30, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)