Horizon Towers : Court Or Circus?

Source : Weekend TODAY, Saturday, September 29, 2007

Shanmugam remark sums up Horizon Towers owners’ day in court

EVEN before the main event got underway, the sideshow — with its sparks, spats and conspiracy theories — proved no less intriguing.

On Friday, the sale committee of 210-unit Horizon Towers took the minority owners to court in an appeal against a Strata Titles Board (STB) decision to throw out an en bloc attempt, after the board found three pages missing from the sale order application.

The legal tussle between the two parties seemed relatively straightforward — until Horizon Partners Private Limited (HPPL), the consortium buying over the development, and a splinter group of majority owners threw their hats into the ring. They made separate applications asking their cases also be heard by the High Court.

Add a mix of acerbic heavyweight lawyers, a rowdy public gallery and suspicions all around, and even the usually mild-mannered Justice Choo Han Teck, who presided over the hearing, had to assert himself several times to keep the courtroom in order.

While some 70 Horizon Towers residents packed the public gallery, extra seats had to be brought in for the lawyers — who included prominent Senior Counsels K S Rajah, K Shanmugam and Chelva Rajah — and their legal assistants from six different law firms.

Before the main proceedings could begin, Justice Choo had to rule on the applications by HPPL and the splinter group. Arguments on all sides were peppered with sharp exchanges and insinuations.

At one point, Mr Shanmugam wanted to interject but was stopped by Justice Choo. The crowd cheered: “Yes, sit down!”

This prompted Mr Shanmugam to remark: “Perhaps, the people at the back should be reminded that this is not a circus.”

Mr Shanumugam also responded to Mr K S Rajah’s remarks that the court should not grant the applications for “all and sundry to do this and that”.

Said Mr Shanmugam: “Firstly, I am not all and sundry. Next, I’m not doing this and that. I’ve a graver interest in the matter than he does.”

Lawyer Ramesh Kannan, representing three minority owners, said that as far as HPPL was concerned, it was “purely an issue of financial gain or loss”.

And the reason why HPPL wanted to be involved, he added, was due to its concern over a “change in strategy” by the majority owners and the suspicion that the current sale committee was “infiltrated” by owners who were against the sale.

Since the majority owners have already resolved to extend the sale order deadline to Dec 11 — as required by the buyer — the latter has no basis for such a suspicion, Mr Ramesh argued.

But Mr Shanmugam countered: “What’s the purpose of the appeal? To get a ruling … and use that in a breach of contract.”

The drama did not end with the hearing, which began at 11am and was adjourned at 2pm with Justice Choo saying he would give his ruling on Monday — after which the actual hearing for the appeal would proceed.

Outside the High Court, the majority owners, who have engaged a public relations firm, gave a statement through one of the unit owners, Mr Victor Ow.

A real estate developer, Mr Ow said: “It was very clear that HPPL was trying to say that the consenting owners are trying to breach the contract. But in fact, we are not.”

On a personal note, he pleaded with the public not to see him and his neighbours as “greedy”. There were “many discrepancies” in the current en bloc legislation, he said, and they were merely fighting for their “individual rights”.

“In fact, we suffer. We are quite prepared to abide by the contract but … do not push us around and cast fear into our lives,” Mr Ow added.