Jun 13, 2009

The final chapter

So, after 11 months, the final chapter of the failed Tampines Court enbloc has been closed. The objecting minority didn't go for blood; preferring instead to accept an offer to bring matters to an end and simply for all to get on with their lives. We were prepared, though, to bring issue to Court for the full amount had the matter dragged on any longer.


 Summary of Round 1 

JUST FACTS


Tampines Court is an ex-HUDC estate
Tenure: 101 Yrs From 01/12/1985
No. of units: 560
Unit sizes: 1650 - 1720 sqft
Share Value: 4
Privatised 01 April 2002
CSC (Full) 14 March 2003
Site area 6.526 ha (16.126 acres) 702,162 sqft / 65,233m2
Height Restriction: 49 metres AMSL 
Green Buffer: 0.626 ha (1.547 acres) 67,382 sqft
Net Site Area 5.900 ha (14.579 acres) 635,071 sqft
Coverage Area: 24%
No. Of Persons Accm : 560 x 5 = 2800 persons
Density 560 / 5.9 95 units per ha (38 units per acres)
Residential Density 2800 / 5.9 = 475 persons / ha (192 persons per acres)
Gross Floor Area 10.096 ha (24.947 acres) 1,086,724 sqft /111,548.4 m2
Restriction in Title/ Gross Plot Area 10.096 / 5.9 = 1.71
DC Table: Use Group B2, Sector 98
Plot ratio is 2.8 as per Master Plan 2008
Potential Gross floor Area (PGFA) over 2 million sqft / 182,652.4 m2 

2005
Dec - Self-appointment of pro-tem En Bloc Committee
Dec - Informal valuation $389,719,233.00

2006
11 Feb - 1st Dialogue session
25 Feb - 2nd Dialogue session
19 April - Draft CSA and cover letter received by owners
14 May - CSA Dialogue session
05 May - First signing of CSA
15th/20th/21st/ 27th May 2006 - CSA signing
09 July - Dialogue session
15 July - CSA Dialogue session
29 July - Update by pro-tem committee tagged after the AGM
05 Aug - Dialogue Session
12 Aug - Dialogue session
.
NEVER SAW THE SC AGAIN UNTIL AFTER THE SALE>>>
2007
21 January - purported 80% threshold reached
23 January - Press Release:- Sea Breeze apartments sold for $53.8 million
In Tampines, a 22-year-old former HUDC development, Tampines Court, has been put up for collective sale with an indicative value of $527 million, inclusive of development charges and differential premium of about $107 million.
It is marketed by Dennis Wee Group. Investment sales director Jimmy Teng said the 702,458 sq ft site has a plot ratio of 2.8 and a potential gross floor area of at least two million sq ft.
‘The successful developer could build about 1,700 units with an average size of 1,250 sq ft,’ he said, adding that developers also have the option to bid for one of the two subdivided parcels.
Source: The Business Times, 23 January 2007
27 January - Press Release:- Tampines Court up for en bloc sale (Weekend Today)
31 January - Announcement of tender in Straits Times
04 February - 80.00% - Statutory 8 week Notice
12 February - Press release:- Collective sale site in next wave may fetch around $1 billion each 
Over at Tampines Court, marketing agent Dennis Wee and the appointed lawyer for the majority owners, Phang & Co, plan to make the huge, 702,162 sq ft leasehold site more digestible to prospective developers by dividing it into two smaller plots.
Developers will be invited to bid for one or both sites. The award will seek to maximise the overall sale price achieved for the two sites combined.
‘If one party submits the highest bid for one plot and another for the second plot, then both developers will have to jointly agree to buy the entire site as the two halves must be sold together,’ explains SK Phang, principal in the law firm.
After completion of the sale of the site, the developers would then partition the site into the two halves and each developer will become the sole owner of the half he has bid for.
As far as owners of the 560 units in the estate are concerned, their sale proceeds will be the average of their share value in the estate and the floor area of their unit – regardless of which subdivided plot their unit stands on.
Source: The Business Times, 12 February 2007
  
08 March - Close of Tender
25 March - Sold by private treaty
Purchase price: $395,000,000.00 + $10 million Beta Sum = $405 million 
Dev. charge + Dif. Premium = $107 million
$260 psf of potential gross floor area. (pgfa) including developmental charges and differential premium.
*Average gross sale price per unit : ~$705K before adjusting for Alpha sums, deduction of costs and expenses etc
(as stated in property agent letter dated 27 March 2007) 
  
28 March - Press Release:- Tampines Court being sold for $405 million (Business Times)
28 March - Dialogue session
1-April - Dialogue session
21 April - Sale and Purchase presentation
31 March - 80.71% - Statutory 8 week Notice
03 May - Outline Planning Permission (OPP)
25 May - 81.6% - Statutory 8 week Notice
22 June - Upgrading to 99 yrs lease
30 June - Minority Dialogue session
19 July - 81.6% - Statutory 8 week Notice
21 July - EOGM
26 July - RPA in principle date of approval
28 July - AGM
12 Aug -
19, 20 August - Collection of disbursement fee ($781.25) from majority owners
5 September - Appointment of Valuer
12 September - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice
06 November - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice
27 December - Notice of application for Sale in 4 Newspapers
31 December - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice 
2008
TAMPINES COURT CASE: STB 02/2008
07 January - Application for sale to the STB
18-22 January - minority objections filed
29 February - Day 1 minority mediation at the STB . Group of 39 legally represented, plus 4 single objectors with no legal representation.
10 April - Day 2 minority mediation
09 June - Day 3 minority mediation
16,17,18 June - STB Hearing. Group of 32 minority legally represented and 2 independent minority.
19 June - Buyer does not agree to amend the S&P Agreement (Beta Sum)
23 June - Interlocutory Application to Amend Application (in chambers).
Application withdrawn
27 June - Buyer not minded to agree to the extension of time (S&P)
30 June - Interlocutory Application to bring forward the date for the adjourned hearing
02 July - Minority objection to bring date forward
09 July - Arguments for and against presented
10 July - Further arguments added
11 July - Application dismissed by STB
16 July - majority apply to High Court to have the date of hearing brought forward : High Court originating Summons 941 2008/P
18 July - High Court Originating Summons 941 2008/P 
Mir Hassan bin Abdul Rahman and Another v Attorney-General[2008] SGHC 147 
Court allows date to be brought forward
21 July - STB Hearing day 4 and Majority Oral Submission
22 July - Minority Oral Submission
23 July - Written submission
24 July - Extra submissions?
25 July - STB dismissed the sale. Grounds for dismissal: lack of good faith in sale price and method of distribution.25 July midnight- Qualifying Certificate expiration, Sales and purchase agreement expires.
************************
The End of En bloc Round 1
By - No comments:
Labels: ,

Neptune Court: Privatisation Woes

Neptune showdown

In stark contrast to the serenity of the nearby East Coast Park, a stormy en bloc tussle is brewing at the 752-unit Neptune Court estate — complete with threats of a police report and potential lawsuits.
Some 100 owners who do not want to move have roped in lawyer Edmond Pereira to prevent their interests “from being circumvented”.
Meanwhile, eight members of the original committee — nominated by residents to consider the en bloc sale — have broken away and formed their own pro tem sale committee, in hopes of hastening the process.
A showdown is slated for Sunday, when the breakaway group, which has appointed its own lawyer and property consultant, starts garnering signatures for its Collective Sale Agreement.
Out to stop them are what’s left of the original committee who — having roped in more members, and with the backing of the Neptune Court Owners’ Association — have urged residents not to sign.
At least 600 owners, or 80 per cent of the estate, must agree to sell the 32-year-old development, for the bid to go through.
Representing the “stayers”, resident Philip Williams is also one of the two remaining members of the original committee, which he maintains is the bona fide one.
Prior to the rift, he alleged, proceedings were not transparent. Mr Williams claimed he was “excluded from the meetings”. His attempt to get the committee disbanded failed.
The managing director, who has lived at Neptune Court for 15 years, told Today: “What we want now is to work with the owners’ association and follow the due process in accordance with the resolution, where strict conditions were laid down for residents to vote on the selection of lawyers and property agents.”
The en bloc bid was initiated last year on a cordial note, when residents elected a 10-men committee to study the possibility.
But after an acrimonious year’s impasse, things came to a head last Saturday, when eight committee members quit to form a pro-tem sale committee. The reason: They disagreed with the owners association’s decision to call for another round of proposals from real estate agencies.
The breakaway group explained, in a letter to residents, that they had invited proposals from 12 real estate agencies before deciding on one by law firm Phang & Co and property consultants Chesterton, which they felt was the “most likely” to meet owners’ needs.
The group said: “Timing is important, if not crucial, for this collective sale exercise. Some of us feel the re-invitation is not necessary, given the work that has gone into the due process and diligence by the committee.”
But on Tuesday, the owners’ association shot back with a circular describing the actions of the breakaway group as “most regrettable”.
The association, which is seeking legal advice, said it wants the “assurance that owners have been given a chance to listen to more presentations” before making “a truly informed choice”. It would not accept responsibility the actions of the “self-appointed” committee.
On his part, Mr Williams wants the breakaway group to hand over documents pertaining to the sale — failing which, he said, he would make a police report.
But the group’s lawyer S K Phang, who runs Phang & Co, said they have refused as they “do not know in which capacity” Mr Williams had made the request.
Dr Phang is also seeking legal advice over a flyer distributed by Mr Williams, in which he had purportedly made disparaging remarks. Said the lawyer: “I need to protect my professional reputation and that of my law firm… subject to the advice, I will have to ask the person or persons responsible for the malicious libel to withdraw the same and for an apology.”
He noted that Mr Williams’ earlier failure to dissolve the original sale committee was a sign it had residents’ “strong support”. According to Dr Phang, the breakaway group has conducted three dialogue sessions attended by some 600 residents.
Source: Today, 10 May 2007

Neptune Court's en bloc dilemma

 WANT to privatise?
Sure, pay us $144 million first, said the Ministry of Finance (MOF).

That’s how much it has valued the piece of land at Neptune Court, which it owns.

This means each household there will have to fork out about $191,000 to privatise their 99-year-leasehold estate before they can even think about selling it en bloc.

There are about 752 households in Neptune Court at Marine Parade and they have been leasing the land from the MOF for the past 32 years.

It looks like their proposed $1 billion enbloc dream will be scuttled for now.

As a rough comparison, residents in HUDC estate Eunosville will have to pay about $30,000 for the privatisation of their estate.

There are 330 apartments in Eunosville, located opposite Eunos MRT station.

At Neptune Court yesterday, there was an air of disbelief as groups of residents gathered to discuss the high price they have to pay.

A letter from the Neptune Court Owners’ Association was pasted on the notice boards by each lift landing, saying that the estimated cost of privatisation was about $144m.

This is probably one of the highest privatisation fees here.

The letter was put up on Wednesday.

Retiree Alex Lee shook his head while trying to calculate how much he has to fork out.

He paid about $500,000 for his 1,700 sq ft unit about 10 years ago.

Another resident, who has lived there for over 30 years, was also shocked at the amount.
This resident, who declined to be named, paid about $50,000 for his 1,600 sq ft unit.

He said: ‘I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw the amount. I don’t understand how they (MOF) arrived at this amount.

WHO WILL PAY?
‘Who’s going to cough up this money? It’s very high. And even if the privatisation is successful, will the en bloc process be successful too?

‘I don’t think many residents here in their right mind will pay this amount. But I’m sure those en bloc die-hards will find a solution.’

The land area there is about 780,000 sq ft - about the size of 15 football fields.

All the residents we spoke to baulked at the amount MOF is asking for.

The Neptune Court Owners’ Association didn’t want to comment.

The MOF said that $144m for the common properties is a preliminary estimate provided to the residents so that they may decide whether or not to pursue privatisation.

This estimate was derived by comparing the capitalised value of the annual net rents at Neptune Court with those of a comparable private condo.

Said a MOF spokesman: ‘Should the residents decide to privatise the estate, the valuation will be updated based on the prevailing market conditions.’

In privatisation, the residents essentially pay HDB (or the MOF in this case) to take over the ownership of common property, such as carparks and landscaped areas.

Owners pay about $25,000 to $30,000 each for privatisation, which covers the cost of common property that has been transferred to owners, legal costs, survey and other processing fees.

Credo Real Estate’s managing director Karamjit Singh was surprised by the huge sum.

He said: ‘Normally, privatisation fees per household ranges from $12,000 to $30,000. This is a huge amount. It will be difficult to get residents to fork out $190,000.

‘Selling en bloc is slim but not impossible. It will be possible if the Government is willing to do a tripartite deal where it gets paid out of the sales proceeds paid by the developer.’

The estate started its en bloc efforts in May last year.

The committee hired law firm Phang & Co and property consultant Chesterton International to kickstart the privatisation and en bloc sale, according to a report in The Straits Times in May.

It offered owners a sale agreement that promised a reserve price of $1.37m or $1.67m, depending on the unit size. 
The New Paper - 24 Nov 2007

Privatise Neptune Court? - pay $144m
Straits Times- 2 Dec 2007
.
Neptune Court privatisation surprise
The New Paper - 8 June 2009
.
So, was the Ministry of Finance playing the en bloc game too? Trying to fleece owners out of substantial sums of money? If the present figure of $40m is closer to the market value, what then was $144m based upon? Pure greed? What was the thinking back then? That the Ministry should reap some of the 'windfall' should the estate go en bloc? "let's slap on our own premium and ride the en bloc wave"?
.
Well, someone in the Ministry must have had a rethink - or maybe the Ministry of National Development stepped in and told the MOF to let the estate go; that the national agenda of maximisation of land use is more important than making a quick buck off the residents' backs.
.
Will they jump at the 'opportunity' to privatise now? $50k is still a lot of money and believe me - IT IS NOT WORTH IT!
.
Neptune Court was sold under a different scheme to the HUDCs - not sure what the difference was - and there is a Neptune Court Owners Association (NCOA). So, it is not HDB run (as highlighted by a comment below), but the land is government owned.
By - 1 comment:
Labels:

May 30, 2009

REGENT GARDENS - It's OK to pay Minority Owners extra sums of money

REGENT GARDENS
.
Straits Times - 30 May 2009
Regent Garden enbloc deal: majority owners lose appeal
THE Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed an appeal by the majority owners of Regent Garden who oppose a $34 million collective sale deal with Allgreen Properties.
The appeal was lodged on May 15, 2008, by 23 of 25 majority owners of the 31-unit project, who were unhappy that Allgreen made extra payments totalling $2 million to six minority owners who initially opposed the collective sale.
The appeal was lodged after Allgreen obtained an order from the High Court on April 16, 2008, compelling the majority owners to complete the sale and purchase of Regent Garden.
Four months earlier in January 2008, the Strata Titles Board rejected the sale on the grounds that the valuation was too low and the deal was not done in good faith.
In its judgement, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the majority owners, saying that there was nothing in the agreement between buyer and seller, or the law, to prohibit Allgreen making additional payments to the minority owners.
The Court of Appeal also reiterated that the Land Titles Strata Act exists to protect minority owners and not to protect majority owners from their own 'improvident' bargain.
Allgreen, represented by Davinder Singh of Drew and Napier, also relied on an affidavit of Knight Frank managing director Tan Tiong Cheng which said: 'It is also my experience that it is not uncommon for the developer to contribute to the payment of the premium to the minority owners to procure their consent to the collective sale.'
On whether the collective sale was done in good faith, the Court of Appeal said: 'A purchaser does not owe any duty of care, much less duty of good faith, to a vendor of property in relation to the price of the property. The general principle is caveat emptor.'
In its concluding observations, the court said collective sales committees that do not want to find themselves in a similar predicament vis-a-vis incentive payments can easily make provision for similar contingencies by providing for them in the sale-and-purchase agreement. 
Business Times, 30 May 2009
.
Today:-
Joy for minority owners
THE six erstwhile minority owners who received about $2 million more than their 25 neighbours from the Regent Garden’s $34 million en bloc sale — arising from additional payments from purchaser Allgreen Properties — can keep the sum to themselves, the Court of Appeal ruled on Friday.
The collective sale went through last May but 23 of the 25 majority owners went to the highest court of the land to seek a share of the additional payments.
Dismissing the majority owners’ appeal against Allgreen with costs, the Court of Appeal ruled that while the practice of developers making extra payments to minority owners may be “potentially divisive and may even sometimes be ethically challenging”, the law does not prohibit such incentive payments.
Allgreen had made the extra payments in order to clinch a unanimous sale agreement. The condominium’s sales committee later tried to scupper the deal after it emerged that initial estimates of the development charge were 87 per cent higher than the actual $951,000, thereby translating into a sale price lower than market valuation.
Agreeing with an earlier High Court decision, the Court of Appeal said the sales committee “sowed the seeds of its present unhappy predicament” when it made a “deliberate decision” not to spend $11,000 on ascertaining the development baseline of their condominium in order to achieve a sale at the earliest possible date.
Appeal Court Justice V K Rajah also said that the Strata Titles Board — which had previously axed the deal following the majority owners’ appeal that the deal was not done in good faith — “should not have entertained the sales committee’s objections”.
He noted that the appellants have “attempted to belatedly rectify their mistake”, saying that the collective sale regime was not designed to “protect a sales committtee from its own errors”. Teo Xuanwei
.

So, now it is official - the Court of Appeal says it is okay for developers to pay minority owners extra sums of money. This is very good news especially for those estates whose sale committees undersold the property by cutting corners, pushing the sale through by all means or ignoring the arguments of the minority who knew better. Of course, the developer must have a REASON to pay out extra sums - in the Regent Garden case, it was to secure the withdrawal of the minority's objections at the STB.
Regent Court was highly unusual in that it was the MAJORITY who were appealing and wanted a share of the extra sum. Thank goodness they lost.
They cut corners.
They set the price.
They sold their estate at an undervalue.
They were fools
.
The minority are at the mercy of incompetent players and should be compensated fully for the forceful sale of their property.
.
Chua Choon Cheng and Others v Allgreen Properties Ltd and Another Appeal[2009] SGCA 21
.
90 Allgreen has not breached any express or implied terms in the CSA or SPA by giving the Additional Payments to the Minority Owners. The SC sowed the seeds of their present unhappy predicament when, to save a mere sum of $11,000, it made a deliberate decision not to accurately ascertain the development baseline of the Property. While one should be slow to take issue with their decision by coldly equating hindsight with foresight, the stubborn facts that cannot be lightly erased are that, acting in the interests of the Majority Owners, the SC, firstly, inappropriately opted to save costs and then, secondly, preferred the comfort of having the certainty of a binding contract with Allgreen to the uncertainty of re-negotiating the Sale Price upon the ascertainment of the actual development baseline. Since they opted to seize and keep the proverbial bird in the hand, it is only just that they cannot now be allowed to complain that the bird is not what they thought it was. While we can understand the appellants’ dismay in relation to how events have unhappily conspired against them, that is not in itself a basis for implying novel new terms in fact or in law into the Agreements. The present circumstances have without doubt been precipitated largely by their own deliberate conduct.
.
91 We acknowledge that the practice of some developers in making direct payments to minority owners to secure their consent can be potentially divisive and may even sometimes be ethically challenging. This, nevertheless, does not mean that the law, as it now stands, prohibits such incentive payments. The Act itself, while comprehensively dealing with a host of contractual issues, plainly does not proscribe such payments. It is also probable, that not infrequently, the majority owners will have no real complaints about such payments, as their overriding interest will be in ensuring that the collective sale is successful (and to collect the sale proceeds early) rather than to quibble about incentive payments made on the sidelines.
.
REGENT GARDENS POST HERE
By - 1 comment:
Labels: ,

May 23, 2009

RAINBOW GARDENS

Development Name:Rainbow Garden
Property Type:Condominium
Developer:Wai Wing Properties Pte Ltd
Tenure:999-year Leasehold
Construction Year:1986
# of Units:64

Collective sale: Application for sale to the STB: Aug 2007

Rainbow Gardens' en bloc sale was approved by the STB 0n 18 May 2008.
The following is the minority appeal to the High Court, the appeal was dismissed on 12 May 2009.

Rainbow gardens High court -
.
I did a quick speed read and it seems a few procedural points were raised. Historically, procedural errors don't have a snowballs chance in hell in succeeding, I wonder why they were even attempted at this level
.
First Issue: failure to "affix a copy of the notice referred to in sub-paragraph (e) in the 4 official languages to a conspicuous part of each building comprised in the strata title plan or the development, as the case may be".
.
Decision:
37. ....Choo J’s decision in Chang Mei Wah can be used as authority to support the proposition that a technical breach will not invalidate an application to an STB if there is no prejudice to anyone, there are still the two decisions in Ng Swee Lang-HC and Ng Swee Lang-CA which are authorities in support of that proposition and I was bound by the decision in Ng Swee Lang-CA.
38.....While a strict approach may arguably lead to some certainty, I was of the view that it would be too harsh to invalidate every application for any non-compliance however slight and inconsequential.
.
Second issue: failure to attach Form 1A in the Application
.
Decision:
54 Since Form 1A was not, strictly speaking, required, non-compliance with the content of Form 1A could not invalidate the Application.
.
58 In any event, I was satisfied that there was no prejudice to the Minority and in accordance with my decision on Issue No.1, I was of the view that the absence of service of the Application did not invalidate the Application, even if there was a requirement that the Application be served.
.
Third issue: The CSA was not signed by subsidiary proprietors holding at least 80% of the share value of RG
.
62 Clause 14(b)(i) of the CSA had stipulated that the MSP [Minimum Selling Price] was not to be less than S$68.5 million. The close of an EOI exercise was on 18 April 2007 and it was learned then that Premier’s offer of $76.8 million was the highest. The Conditional SPs then signed the CSA and inserted a condition that their signatures would not be valid if the MSP was lower than $76.8 million. [Minority Lawyer] submitted that as this was a different sum from the MSP stipulated under clause 14(b)(i), the Conditional SPs had not agreed with all the terms of the CSA.
.
63 [Minority lawyer]also submitted that although clause 14(b)(ii) of the CSA had stated that the SC might raise the MSP without seeking the consent of those who had signed the CSA, the SC was required under that provision to notify the Majority of the decision to raise the MSP by a written notice. The SC did not do this until late July 2007, just before the Application was submitted.
.
Decision:
65 As for any breach to notify the others who had signed the CSA about the higher revision of the MSP, [majority lawyer] submitted that it was for the other signatories to complain about such a breach.
.
66 In Liu Chee Ming v Loo-Lim Shirley [2008] 2 SLR 764 (“Liu Chee Ming”), I had said at [50]: The appellants were not parties to the CSA even though eventually, by virtue of the decision of the Board, they were bound by its terms. Accordingly, their complaint about a breach of cl 6.1.1 was from the angle that such a breach established an absence of good faith. The vendors who had signed the CSA were not opposing the application to the Board.
.
67 Understandably, none of the other signatories had objected to any breach of clause 14(b)(ii). They had obtained a price higher than the MSP stipulated in clause 14(b)(i). However, Mr Liew’s argument was that there was no consensus ad idem among all the Majority at the relevant time. Looking at clause 14(b)(ii) in a common-sensical way, I was of the view that there would be consensus ad idem if the SC did not object to the condition, which was the case. The MSP had been effectively raised to $76.8 million. This condition was met. The notification to the others was an additional step that should have been taken but the omission to do so did not vitiate the CSA as between all the Majority.
.
68 Hence, I was of the view that by the time the Application was made (on or about 3 August 2007), the requisite percentage of share value had been obtained.
.
Fourth issue – The transaction was not in good faith having regard to the sale price in the SPA

 

UOL taking half-share in Rainbow site 

10 Oct 2009 

UOL Group is taking a half-share in the Rainbow Gardens site in Toh Tuck Road bought by the LaSalle Asia Opportunity II fund in a collective sale a few years ago.
The 999-year leasehold plot and an adjoining strip of state land total a land area of 130,164 sq ft. In its statutory filing with the Singapore Exchange (SGX) yesterday, UOL said planning approval has been granted for a condo project with a gross floor area of about 182,219 sq ft.
BT understands the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) approval for the site is for a five-storey condo with around 120 units although market watchers reckon that with UOL’s advent, the unit mix could be reconfigured.
In its statement, UOL said it will be investing a total of about $15.58 million for its half-share in a joint-venture company it has formed with the LaSalle fund. The sum UOL is investing comprises $1 million in ordinary shares, about $10.17 million in redeemable preference shares, and about $4.4 million in shareholders’ loans.
UOL said it and/or its subsidiaries will be appointed as the project and sales and marketing managers for the new condo to be built.
Source : Business Times – 10 Oct 2009



NEW LAUNCH - TERRENE@BUKIT TIMAH 
(FORMERLY RAINBOW GARDENS)

Project Name: Terrene @ Bukit Timah
Description: 8 Blocks of 5-storey condominium development & 1 level basement car park.
Terrene Location: Former Rainbow Garden ~ Jalan Jurong Kechil
District: 21
Site Area: 130,117 sq ft (12088.2 sqm)
Tenure: 999 years
Expected TOP: 31 March 2014
Total Nos of Units: 172 Units

More than 100 units of Terrene at Bukit Timah sold

 July 15, 2010
Property developer UOL Group has sold more than 100 units of its latest condominium project, Terrene at Bukit Timah.
This is almost 80 per cent of the 130 units released at a private preview which started on July 8.
UOL will be releasing the remaining 42 units for the official launch on Friday.
The 999-year leasehold condominium is a 50-50 joint venture between UOL and La Salle Asia Investment Management.
The apartments are priced at an average of S$1,250 per square foot for a typical unit.
They range from S$719,000 for a one-bedroom unit to S$2.79 million for a five-bedroom penthouse.
UOL said 23 of the 30 penthouse units have been sold.
Demand came mainly from Singaporean buyers, with majority from private homes in the nearby vicinity.
The five-storey development of 172 units, stretches across more than 130,000 square feet near the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve.
The development is expected to be ready by April 2014.
Source : Channel NewsAsia – 15 Jul 2010
By - No comments:
Labels:

May 16, 2009

Gillman Heights Sale Finalised

The protracted and controversial sale of Gillman Heights finally came to an end on Friday 22 May 2009, when owners and buyers legally completed the $548 million deal.
Straits Times - 23 May 2009

Earlier reports had indicated that owners of the estate’s 607 units stood to receive between $870,000 and $950,000 for their apartments.'
.
'Chief executive of CapitaLand Residential’s Singapore operations Patricia Chia said in a statement yesterday that ‘going forward, we are looking at presenting our other projects such as the proposed development at the Gillman Heights Condominium site at the appropriate time’.
.
Now let's see how much each unit in the new development will go for - I believe the en bloc price owners received will look like peanuts compared to the sale price of new units. Another case of 'Half the size, double the price',

It's not what you get incomparison with what you paid originally- it's what you get in comparison with what you can get as a replacement that's important.
.
1-for-1 exchange - the only guarantee in an en bloc
.
Gillman Heights site sale; last minute hurdles cleared
The consortium that bought the Gillman Heights condo site in a collective sale has ‘every intention’ of completing its purchase, its lawyers said in a statement.

While the sale was not completed by the previous deadline of May 15, lawyers for the buyers and sellers are now looking at the new deadline of May 22 after two last-minute hurdles were cleared.

The buyer of Gillman Heights – a group called Ankerite, which is led by property giant CapitaLand – was supposed to have completed the $548 million purchase last Friday.

But the sale of the 99-year-leasehold estate on Alexandra Road, which has dragged on for two years now, has not been signed off yet. The deal was first inked in 2007.

Ankerite’s lawyers, Rajah & Tann, had on April 30 queried the sales committee on two issues, which have since been resolved. With those obstacles cleared, Rajah & Tann is now working with the sales committee’s lawyers from Lee and Lee to close the deal as soon as possible.

‘The lawyers of both parties are working towards May 22, 2009 to complete the purchase of the site,’ said a CapitaLand spokeswoman yesterday.

One sticking point was the transfer of $750,000 from the management corporation’s (MCST) management fund to the sinking fund in August 2007 and March 2008, which was discovered during the due diligence exercise.

Rajah & Tann wanted the money transferred back into the management fund, as money from this fund goes to the buyers upon the completion of the sale.

This issue has since been resolved. Rajah & Tann said in its statement that the money will remain in the management fund, as the management council of the MCST has annulled its previous resolutions transferring money to the sinking fund.

The second contentious point was a separate suit by a local contractor against the MCST. But this appears to have been settled as well. Rajah & Tann said that on Saturday it received a copy of the settlement agreement signed by the MCST’s solicitors and the solicitors for the contractor.

Ankerite initially comprised CapitaLand, Hotel Properties and two private funds, but CapitaLand will buy up another 5.5-10 per cent of the company from the stake now held by one of the private funds. This will make Ankerite a CapitaLand subsidiary.

The sale of Gillman Heights finally got the go-ahead in February this year after the Court of Appeal dismissed a last-ditch plea by minority owners to overturn the deal. Earlier reports had indicated that owners of the estate’s 607 units stood to receive between $870,000 and $950,000 for their apartments.
Source : Business Times – 18 May 2009

Gillman Heights en bloc deal is on
GILLMAN Heights owners can heave a sigh of relief now that the estate’s buyers Ankerite have confirmed that the group will go ahead with the purchase of the development.

Property giant CapitaLand, majority shareholder of Ankerite, told The Straits Times in a statement last night that ‘lawyers of both parties are working towards May 22 to complete the purchase of the site’.
Its latest move follows a report in The Straits Times over the weekend that Ankerite had failed to complete the sale by its due date, last Friday.

This caused anxiety amongst some owners at the 607-unit estate in Alexandra Road, who feared that the buyers got cold feet, as some owners had committed to buying other properties.

Earlier reports indicated that owners stood to get between $870,000 and $950,000 for their units.
The sale – first inked in early 2007 for a record $548 million at the height of the property market boom – has been dogged by controversy as minority owners fought at every turn to overturn the sale.
It was finally thought to be a done deal in February after the Court of Appeal dismissed a last-ditch plea by minority owners to reverse the transaction.

However, just two weeks before the sale completion date, on April 30, Ankerite raised some issues. Two points of contention were: a sum of $750,000 transferred out of the estate management fund; and separate monies allocated for a lawsuit against the estate’s management corporation (MCST) by a contractor who built the estate’s clubhouse and swimming pool in 2002.

MCST members said these issues were raised ‘at the last minute’, but Ankerite clarified yesterday that it took time to carry out the ‘due diligence process’ and access to relevant documents was granted by the MCST only on Apr 23 and Apr 24.

Ankerite said the sales committee lawyers Lee and Lee notified them that these issues were resolved on the afternoon of May 15 – the sale completion date. However, Rajah and Tann wanted proof that the outstanding lawsuit had been settled, and only received a copy of the settlement agreement on Saturday, May 16.

‘With this settlement agreement…the lawyers are working to complete the purchase as soon as possible,’ said Ankerite’s lawyers.

MCST chairman Kok Chong Weng said he was glad to hear a date has been set to complete the deal, but added that residents might be looking at options to see if any compensation can be claimed for the delay.

Meanwhile, chief executive of CapitaLand Residential’s Singapore operations Patricia Chia said in a statement yesterday that ‘going forward, we are looking at presenting our other projects such as the proposed development at the Gillman Heights Condominium site at the appropriate time’.
Source : Straits Times – 18 May 2009

Last-minute hitch threatens sale of Gillman Heights
THE troubled $548 million Gillman Heights collective sale that was due to be settled yesterday was stalled by a last-minute hitch.

The sale, which has dragged on for two controversy-wracked years, was supposed to have been signed off by last night but the owners’ lawyers told The Straits Times that the buyers did not complete the deal.

The buyers – a group called Ankerite and led by property giant CapitaLand – raised some issues out of the blue on April 30 relating to routine funds held by the condominium’s management.
Now, some owners at the 607-unit estate in Alexandra Road fear that the buyers have got cold feet and are using the funds issue to back out.

Earlier reports indicated that owners stood to receive between $870,000 and $950,000 for their units.
The sale – first inked in early 2007 – was thought to be a done deal in February after the Court of Appeal dismissed a last-ditch plea by minority owners to overturn the transaction.

But Ankerite’s lawyers Rajah and Tann wrote to the sales committee on April 30 about money left in the management corporation’s (MCST) management fund. These funds go to the buyers on completion of the sale.

Rajah and Tann wanted $750,000 transferred back into the management fund from the sinking fund and the move approved by residents at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) before the completion date.

An MCST member who declined to be named said it was ‘ridiculous’ to request an EGM at such short notice. Residents are usually notified weeks ahead.

He also noted that Rajah and Tann did not raise the issues until April 30 – just two weeks before the May 15 completion date and two months after the appeals court gave the green light.

Ankerite’s April 30 letter also raised another contentious point – a separate on-going suit by a local contractor against the MCST.

The MCST had set aside almost $700,000 in the management fund to settle the case but Rajah and Tann requested that $2.3 million be allocated.

The MCST has since settled the suit for around $400,000. This meant it had no need to allocate the $2.3 million but it did transfer $750,000 into the management fund. This was done so that there would be ‘no excuses’ for the buyers not to complete the sale, said the MCST member.

Law firm Lee and Lee, which is acting for the sales committee, notified Rajah and Tann in a letter seen by The Straits Times that the issues raised had been resolved even though there was ‘no legal basis to claim the disputed sums’.

It also warned against delaying or deferring completing the sale of the 99-year leasehold estate.

A CapitaLand spokesman confirmed yesterday that during the ‘due diligence process’, it had ‘raised queries relating to a number of issues’. ‘With the view to…the completion of the acquisition soon, CapitaLand has been in constant discussion with the sales committee.’

Ankerite initially comprised CapitaLand, Hotel Properties and two private funds, but CapitaLand will buy up the 10 per cent holding of one private fund for $21.7 million. This will make Ankerite an indirect unit of CapitaLand.

Resident G. Kaur said some neighbours were anxious to see the deal done as they had committed to other properties, ‘but for some residents…it means that they can get to enjoy living in their homes a while longer than expected’, she added.
Source : Straits Times – 16 May 2009  
.
Possibly only a glitch ..... the buyers were so aggressive in pushing the sale through, it seems implausable that they are now looking to abort the deal at this impossibly late stage..But you never know... keep your fingers crossed Mr Kok et al.
.
CapitaLand (the buyers of GH) are not reeling from the property slump, but they nevertheless might want to shave off a development or two. They did manage a small profit in the first quarter according to the following report;-
.
CapitaLand posts $42.9m Q1earnings
Business Times-25 April 2009
.
CapitaLand meets property valuers
Business Times- 09 May 2009

"‘During these dialogues we exchange views about industry practices, market outlook and other general aspects,’ the spokesman said. ‘There are no direct references to our properties or projects.’
.
Yes, just a 'friendly chat' between of the biggest players in the game and the guys who either increase to decrease the value of their substantial portfolio according to market conditions.
.
Developers meet valuers in search for common good
Business Times -29 April

"Developers last week held a meeting with valuers amid recent complaints in some quarters that conservative valuations have derailed some home sale deals as potential buyers could not secure the required loan quantum from banks."
By - No comments:
Labels:

Apr 5, 2009

Newspaper reports

Collective sale impetus fizzles out
Sunday Times-5 April 2007


"At the height of the property boom in 2007, 116 collective sales were completed. This figure was whittled down to just eight last year, after the onslaught of the global economic crisis.
There was no collective sale done in the first three months of this year."
.
A much needed respite for genuine home owners and "The once fever-hot collective sale market is now stone-cold, and property experts predict it will take at least five years for transactions to reach the pitch seen before."


Though, in five years, the lessons learned from our failed en bloc might well be forgotten through collective amnesia!
.


Not an end for en bloc sales
Straits Times - 10 April 2009
.
"The judgment has been met by howls of protest from many in the property sector. The fear is that the bar has been set so high that any future deals will be impossible. They say the balance has been shifted too far in favour of en bloc dissenters, such that an en bloc deal becomes vulnerable to even the smallest objections.


As long as sale committee members act on behalf of all owners and transparently, it shouldn’t be a problem,’ said Knight Frank investment sales head Foo Suan Peng.
.
It restores the requisite level of care and attention that should be paid when people contemplate selling something they are as emotionally attached to as their homes.
And if society in general eventually learns to be guided by principles other than monetary gains, then it can only be a good thing."
.
Let them howl! The scoundrels have had it their way for far too long. The problem was the bar was set so low that sale committees, devoid of all moral responsibility, were acting like gangsters to drive a sale to completion. The gangster character, the desperate bankrupt, the retrenched, the flipper, the double unit owner, the soon-to-be-emigre should all be banned from serving on sale committees. They are at the bottom of any list of suitable candidates and owners should be wary of their ulterior motives.
.
"It is the first time the minority group has won on the basis that the sale was not in good faith, and not on a technicality,’ said Mr Philip Fong of Harry Elias Partnership, who represented the objectors."
.
Excuse me? That should read "It is the first time the monority group has won on the basis that the sale was not in good faith at the court of appeal."
Tampines Court also won on the basis that the sale was not done in good faith in the method of distribution of the sale proceeds AND in the sale price.
.
Business Times-15 April 2009
Think of the elderly
Straits Times - 15 April 2009
By - No comments:

Apr 2, 2009

HORIZON TOWERS WIN!

HORIZON TOWERS MINORITY
WIN AT APPELLATE COURT!
.
This is a HUGE win for the minority and a much needed breath of fresh air from the courts . The minority fought long and hard on this one, and they have been rewarded with the most sensible judgment on the en bloc process ever to come out of the courts, and the first ever in favour of the minority. It has taken a long time for the courts to mirror the 'everyman'' view of justice; that if 80% want to force 20% out of their homes against their will, then they had better do it properly. Too long have sale committees/property agents/en bloc lawyers run roughshod over the minority, and increasingly, the majority, too. Looking after their vested interest being the prime motivation in a sale. It seems almost too good to be true. This decision puts POWER back into the hands of the STB to take a good hard look at the sale, especially in the area of good faith; power that previous rulings had stripped away from them, leaving the STB (in my humble layman's opinion) almost impotent in the face of legitimate minority objections. This decision reigns in somewhat the crazy excesses of the purposive approach, defining what the duties of the SC are and when they overstep the mark. Fiduciary duty has regained it's central importance and the Board has to play a "proactive inquisitional role" (reversing Hon. Choo Han Teck's pronouncement that the STB "was not the appropriate forum for considering the conduct of the SC"). The hallowed words of Parliament that the 'safeguards are found in the rules' don't ring so hollow anymore (at least, these are some important wrongs that have been righted).
.
The pendulum of Justice has swung back to the centre.
.
Horizon Towers ruling: All owners to get slice of $1.9m pie
Straits Times; 17 Jul 2009
ChannelNewsAsia - 2 April 2009
Horizon Towers sale won't go ahead
Business Times - 2 April 2009
Court quashes en bloc sale of Horizon Towers
Business Times - 3 April 2009
Troubled Towers: A timeline
Sunday Times - 5 April 2009Italic
The Lawyers 21/2 tear bonanza of billable hours
Sunday Times - 5 April 2009
Minority Owners: "Sweet victory" but no winner
Sunday Times - 5 April 2009
The Buyers: a good deal that turned sour
Sunday Times - 5 April 2009
The Majority turned Minority: Mixed feelings
Sunday Times - 5 April 2009
Sunday Times - 5 April 2009
Just glad the saga is over
Sunday Times - 5 April 2009
No ill feelings over failed sale
Sunday Times -5 April 2009
Horizon Towers owners ready to move on
Sunday Times - 5 April 2009
Not an end to en bloc sales
Straits Times - 10 April 2009
Scrutinise future collective sales to protect home owners
Straits Times - 14 April 2009
Failed deal nets Horizon Towers owners $1.5m
Straits Times - 23 April 2009
.
The Court of Appeal has issued two documents
.
2) Judgment (122 pages long!)
.

.
From the 'Summary of Case' :-
.
"(2) An SC was the agent of all the subsidiary proprietors in relation to the collective sale of their strata units as a result of which a fiduciary relationship arose between the SC and the subsidiary proprietors. Since ............ an Sc had the power to sell the units of objecting subsidiary proprietors against their wishes, the need for the imposition of high standards of conduct upon the SC ................... was even more pressing than in the case of an ordinary common law agency relationship".
.
"The SC's duties included: (a)the duty of loyalty or fidelity; (b) the duty of even-handedness (c) the duty to avoid any conflict of interest (d) the duty to make full disclosure of relevant information; and (e) the duty to obtain the best price for the properties of the subsidiary proprietors:"
.
(3) In considering whether there was "good faith" in the transaction ..... The Horizon Board should not have confined itself to determining whether the sale price was fair or not, but should have considered what was good faith in general law (common law and equity). The word "transaction" in s 84(A)(9)(a)(i) of the LTSA embraced the entire sale process....."
.
(4) A Strata Titles Board had to play a proactive inquisitional role in determining applications for collective sale whenever objections had been filed. It was not confined to the evidence presented to it by the contending parties, but had to seek out the facts whenever there was reason to believe that the SC had not disclosed everything about the transaction to the Board:
.
(5) In refusing to subpoena (ex sale committee member) to testify and in allowing the original SC to assert legal privilege in respect to the advice given by it's solicitors, the Horizon Board had erred in law."
.
(6) ....the Horizon board had applied the wrong test for conflict of interest. The correct question to ask was whether there was a possible conflict of interest. Furthermore , the Horizon Board had wrongly placed the burden of proof on the objectors:
.
(8) In it's ruling that the requirement of "good faith" ........... :meant "honesty, fairness, and absence of unconscionable and perhaps even reckless behaviour", the Horizon Board had erred in law by adopting a narrow interpretation of "good faith":
.
(9) In concluding that the original SC had acted in good faith in selling the property to HPL as it had received and relied on legal advice when deciding ......... the Horizon Board had erred again. It was not the law that a fiduciary was entitled to rely on legal advice alone to exonerate itself from any breach of duty.

...ultimately the trustee had to make his own decision in good faith, responsibly and reasonably.
.
(10) The judge had erred in law in taking a restricted view of the duties of a Strata Titles Board in dealing with applications for approval for collective sales.
.
(11) The original SC had breached its duties as fiduciary agent for all the subsidiary proprietors by failing to act with due diligence and transparency in the process of appointing a property agent; failing to proactively follow up on the Vineyard offer and other expressions of interest; failing to improve the chances of obtaining a better price for the property by leveraging on the Vineyard offer in negotiations with HPL; failing to obtain advice from an independent property expert prior to the sale and disregarding First Tree's obviously conflicting motivation in pushing for the sale; acting with undue haste in finalising the sale to HPL when there was no legal or moral obligation to do so; deciding to sell the Property to HPL when there were undisclosed potential conflicts of interest on the part of the two key SC members; and failing to consult (or even to update) the consenting subsidiary proprietors to seek further instructions despite the surge in the property market: "
.

Future sale committees,
en bloc lawyers and property agents beware!
You can no longer get away with blue murder,
engage in tricky business with impunity,
close your ears to minority concerns,
look after your own vested interest,
keep owners out of the picture,
show scant regard to the rules,
ignore higher counter offers
hide behind legal privilege,
sell at the lowest price,
or in haste,

because

the STB is back in the saddle!

Furthermore, they now have INQUISITIONAL POWERS!
By - No comments:
Labels: ,

REGENT COURT



After losing at the Appellate Court over financial loss and the having the case returned to the STB for continuance ..........Regent Court had it's case dismissed at the STB again; this time for another reason!

Something about the STB insisting that the developer pay Stamp Duty on the sale before the case would be heard by the Board unless all parties agree to 'impound the S&P'. At least two dissenting minority owners did not agree to impound the S&P and so the case was dismissed. Actually, it was a case of the application being rejected rather than the case being dismissed.
.
The STB now insist that the stamp duty on the S&P MUST be paid upfront, before an application is made to the Board. Stamp duty is usually paid within 2 weeks of the sale and purchase agreement being signed, but this rule has not been enforced for en blocs up until now. A late payment incurs a heavy penalty by the IRAS. If the STB does not approve a sale then the stamp duty is returned but not the penalty.
.
STB circular on Stamp Duty
.
Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib and Others v Lim Choon Thye and Others
[2009] SGHC 216
By - No comments:
Labels:

Mar 14, 2009

Parliamentary Debates/Speeches by Min of Law on LTSA

.
"The Minister of State for Law said:
" I had informed this House on 19th November last year that Government would be amending the law to make it easier for en-bloc sales to take place. The current position is that a single owner, for whatever reason, can oppose and thwart the sale. Government has received many appeals and feedback from frustrated owners whose desires to sell their flats or condominiums en-bloc have been so thwarted. As a result, these buildings cannot take advantage of enhanced plot ratios to realise their full development potential, which would have created many more housing units in prime 999-year leasehold or freehold areas for Singaporeans. A secondary benefit is that these developments, especially the older ones, could have been rejuvenated through the en-bloc process.
I said that the law would be amended to remove the need for unanimous consent"
.
Secondly, there will be adequate safeguards to protect the interests of minority owners. These safeguards are in the procedures as well as the substantive powers of the Strata Titles Board.
.
Let me now elaborate on the role of the Board, in particular how it acts as a safeguard.
.
If mediation fails, the sale will nevertheless proceed as long as the transaction is bone fide and at arm's length, unless there are exceptional circumstances to warrant the Board assuming a more pro-active role; for example, the sale proceeds are lower than the purchase price he had paid for the unit, or are insufficient to redeem the outstanding mortgage or charge on the unit. This is based on the assumption that none of the owners in an en bloc sale should lose out financially.
.
.
2 Sir, the main purpose of this Bill, which amends the Land Titles (Strata) Act, is to provide additional safeguards and greater transparency for all owners involved in en bloc sales, i.e. both majority and minority owners. The proposed amendments address the concerns of owners over the lack of clarity, transparency and safeguards in the current process of an en bloc sale. They also ensure that the interests of all owners are taken into consideration more adequately. While the amendments are intended to achieve those objectives, we have also borne in mind that the amended law does not make it unduly onerous to bring about an en bloc sale.
.
21 The proposed changes will not apply to developments where the required 80% or 90% majority of owners, based on share value, have signed the CSA as at the date of the commencement of the amendment Act. They will not need to comply with the new requirements set out in the amendment Act.
.

23 I would like to reiterate that the amendments to the en bloc sale legislation maintain a careful balance. They provide additional safeguards and ensure greater transparency for all owners, but at the same time, have been drafted in such a way as not to make it unduly onerous to bring about an en bloc sale.
.
(emphasis are my own)
Regent Court High Court decision March 2009
21 At the Second Reading of the Bill containing the provisions for collective sales at Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (31 July 1998), vol 69 at cols 601-607, the Minister of State for Law said:

.
I had informed this House......
.
It was clear from this speech and others made in Parliament that the main purpose of the provisions relating to collective sale in the Act was to make it easier for collective sales to go through in order to promote better utilisation of scarce land resources in Singapore and also urban redevelopment.
.
25 Whilst it is plain from the above speech that Parliament was concerned that an owner in an en-bloc sale should not lose out financially by reason of that sale, that does not mean that only a literal approach to s 84A(7) would achieve that purpose. "
By - No comments:
Labels:

Mar 11, 2009

REGENT COURT - High Court ruling on Financial loss

Regent Court ruling explained
The objectors said their share of the sale proceeds would amount to $932,000; they had bought their flat for $993,000.
But ....... the buyer, Regent Development, had undertaken to settle the gross difference of $93,935.75 once the sale went through.
The STB did not consider this payment and took account of only the objectors’ purchase price and the en bloc sale price.
Straits Times - 11 Mar 2009
.
My legal purist friend will not be happy with this ruling. The LTSA specifiaclly states that the Board can reject a sale when an owner suffers financial loss (as defined by their own very narrow criteria). This has been reiteraterd again and again in parliamentary speeches right from the beginning and has always merited special mention and attention - even to the point of having it's own SCHEDULE dedicated to it! It is the cornerstone of minority rights and protection!
.
The High Court has now decided in its wisdom that the loss can be ameliorated by a third party payment.
.
Perhaps the LTSA rules should be amended yet again to reflect this new reading: Fourth sechedule to include item no 5 in it's list of allowable deductables to ascertain financial loss.
.
Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib and Others v Lim Choon Thye and Others[2009] SGHC 48
.
Ok, I have read the High Court decision and again the 'purposive interpretation' rather than the literal meaning of the Statutory requirement is yet again propounded. The words "Sales proceeds" also take on a new meaning.
.
The defendents argued: 17 "that the plaintiffs’ argument that the Board may “supplant or vary” the statutory formula in computing financial loss by taking into consideration the undertaking given by the Purchaser was untenable. They noted that Parliament had specifically provided for an increase to be made from the proceeds of sale to an objector who suffered financial loss. By s 84A(7)(a), the Board was empowered to increase the objector’s share of the sale proceeds with the consent of the collective sale committee. By s 84A(7)(b), Parliament had set a limit to such an increase viz 0.25% of the proceeds of sale for each lot or $2,000 for each lot whichever is the higher. Parliament was at pains to make sure that each owner received a proportionate share of the proceeds of sale and it was not willing to allow any one or more owners to hold the owners to ransom. The plaintiffs were attempting to circumvent this provision by obtaining the undertaking and supplemental agreement. In effect they were trying to compel the ninth and tenth defendants to accept the Undertaking to which these defendants were not parties to and give up their statutory right not to be compelled to sell. This should not be allowed and the appeal should be dismissed."
.
The Judgment:
.
19 In recent years, the literal rule has been regarded as completely out-dated."
.
55 At the end of the day, each objection must be examined on its own facts and the particular requirement breached set against the overall purpose of the legislation. One should then consider whether a strict construction and the invalidation of the Board’s order is what Parliament would have intended, taking into account any prejudice to the rights of parties and the public interest (if any).
.
27 I accepted the above submission. I considered that the legislature would not have intended the adverse consequences to future en-bloc sales that would arise from a strict construction of “proceeds of sale”. I also agreed that the interpretation propounded by the plaintiff was not a strained interpretation of the Act. There was no reason why “proceeds of sale” should be limited to simply looking at the “purchase price” set out in the sale and purchase agreement."
.
28 Adopting such an interpretation means that the Board would be entitled to consider not only the sale and purchase agreement but also the Undertaking and the supplemental agreement in deciding whether or not the ninth and tenth defendants had suffered “financial loss” under the Act. . In my view, the Board was, accordingly, wrong in law to decide that it could not look at these additional documents simply because they were extrinsic to the sale and purchase agreement.
.
29 There was an argument that the Board could not consider the undertaking because this document was not enforceable by the ninth and tenth defendants. That argument was misplaced. Under s 84A(11) of the Act, the Board has the power to make any order and to give any direction “as may be necessary or expedient” to give effect to an order made under s 84A(7) for the collective sale of the development. This section empowers the Board to facilitate the en-bloc sale in any way necessary and therefore the Board would have had the power, had it wished to exercise it, to allow the sale to go through subject to the purchaser (which had already indicated its willingness to compensate the ninth and tenth defendants) entering into a binding agreement with the ninth and tenth defendants to make good the financial loss sustained by them. It could also order the purchaser to pay the compensation moneys to someone to hold as stakeholders pending the completion of the sale and purchase so that there would be no worry about default on the part of the purchaser."
By - 1 comment:
Labels: , ,

Feb 20, 2009

CAIRNHILL HEIGHTS










The buyer pulled out 20 days before completion, forfeiting the $2.2 million in deposit. This prime freehold property was completed in 1990 and is comprised of 20 units only. There was at least one minority owner who took his case all the way to High Court but lost in November 2008.
.
I wonder if this will be the lucky fate of Gillman Heights - will the buyer pull out of that transaction, too?
.
Straits Times - 20 Feb 2009
By - 2 comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)