Nov 13, 2015
Nov 7, 2015
Oct 8, 2015
Gilstead Court COA overturns HC Decision- or BULLIES BEWARE!
Another brilliant decision handed down by the Court of Appeal.
In a nutshell:
In a nutshell:
- The High court has no power to change the terms and conditions set out in the CSA after the fact - in other words they cannot first rule that there was bad faith and then 'fix it' so that the sale can go through. Hurray to that.
- The CSA cannot contain punitive clauses for non-signatories - because
an SP has the
absolute right not to sign the CSA, for whatever reason he or she might have.
The law still expects that such an SP will be treated fairly...... No
SP should ever feel compelled to sign a document he or she does not agree with
because of undue group pressure or the fear of suffering penal consequences,
whether covert or overt.
Sep 27, 2015
Tampines Court Resale Indexes since Privatisation
Source material (charts are my own): Realis & URA website
Sep 16, 2015
EOGM 1
EOGM 1 for the purposes of a Collective Sale.
I didn't attend but the quorum was reached and the third Sale Committee elected (10 members, I believe).
May 6, 2015
Mar 22, 2015
Tampines Ave 10 Parcel D Land Sale
http://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/land-sales-repository/Sites/tampines-av10-pd-cl.aspx
BIDS
AWARD OF TENDER
(04 May 2015)
(04 May 2015)
Mar 21, 2015
Mar 20, 2015
Feb 17, 2015
Gilstrad Court: High Couet gives go-ahead to Sale
The High Court has finally given the fractious collective sale of Gilstead Court condominium the green light.
It has ordered that contentious clauses at the heart of the long-running dispute be struck out from its sales agreement.
The dispute, which began in July 2013, centred on financial penalties imposed on owners who had objected to the sale.
Under the collective sale agreement, consenting sellers had to contribute towards a common fund set up for costs related to the $150.2 million sale en bloc. But objecting owners were asked to fork out twice the amount, to be withheld from their share of the net sale proceeds and shared equally among the consenting owners.
The collective sale committee, led by former Supreme Court judge Warren Khoo, had already got the requisite 80 per cent of owners to consent for the Strata Titles Board's (STB) sale approval.
The objecting owners, under other clauses in the agreement, had been required to pay an extra $135,000 for the approval proceedings, of which, a $120,000 legal consultant's fee was disputed.
But in a 69-page judgment obtained by The Straits Times yesterday, the court made clear that the dissenting owners have "basic rights" to object to the collective sale and were not bound by the terms of the agreement since they were never signatories.
"This cannot be right. Otherwise, a majority can embark on an ill-advised collective sale and yet call upon the detractors to contribute to the costs thereof," said Justice Quentin Loh. It would, by extension, be "unjust and impermissible", by a contract drawn among the majority owners, to have objecting owners bear costs related to the proceedings.
Also, it is within the High Court's power to decide who should bear the costs related to STB proceedings, not the collective sale committee or majority owners, he added. In this case, costs related to the sale en bloc should be paid by all owners according to their unit's share value.
Developer Tuan Sing had earlier made an offer to bear the $135,000 to end the dispute, a move which Mr Khoo alleged was in breach of a clause which warned against "illicit payments" in the sales agreement.
Mr Khoo, represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, later withdrew the allegations, but was told to pay $20,000 for work by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and Jaikanth Shankar of Drew & Napier while representing Tuan Sing for the High Court hearing.
There was no "surreptitious offer" to any of the owners, said Justice Loh, since it was made "openly" to all. Tuan Sing's offer eventually lapsed.
Though it would have been "simpler and neater" to refuse the sale, Justice Loh pointed out that it would not have been in the interests of the majority owners to do so, given the "present state" of the property market.
Mr Chong Chou Yuan, chief financial officer at Tuan Sing, told The Straits Times: "We are pleased with the court's judgment... If the sale goes through, we'd be more than happy to accept it because it's a very good location."
Cheryl Ong
This article was first published on February 14, 2015.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)