Phoenix Still Can't Rise Yet

Source : Weekend TODAY, November 10, 2007

Appeal quashed but en-bloc dissenters may not stop there

AT least one owner faces the threat of bankruptcy, while others are staring at rising penalties for failing to redeem housing loans for their next properties.

They are among the owners of 46 units at Phoenix Court, and their woes may not be at an end, even though a High Court judge on Friday allowed them to proceed with the en-bloc sale.

The owners of the sole dissenting apartment have indicated they might re-appeal against Justice Andrew Ang's decision to dismiss their appeal against the sale. Their lawyer, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, said his clients could ask the court again to continue its order to hold the sale of the property.

On Friday, Justice Ang lifted the freeze off the sale of Phoenix Court, a freehold 13-storey apartment block at River Valley Road. He said some of the majority owners could have entered into agreements to buy other properties, and would thus risk having their agreements revoked in a rising property market.

Justice Ang called this "a real problem", with the majority owners left not knowing when the en-bloc sale would be completed.

Under the Sales and Purchase agreement (S&P), the sale of Phoenix Court to the buyers was to have gone through by Sept 18.

Justice Ang ordered Mr Hwang and his clients to file a fresh application, supported with affidavits, if they wanted to hold off the sale. Mr Hwang said he would consult with his clients first.

The tussle began in April last year when owners of Phoenix Court inked the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA). Among the 47 apartments, only the owners of one dissented — Mr Yip Hoi Thong and Madam Ng Swee Lang.

Six months later, a deal was sealed with Bukit Panjang Plaza for $88.1 million. The sale committee went on to apply for a Strata Titles Board to proceed with the sale in January.

After the couple's objection was dismissed by the board, they took the matter to the High Court, demanding that the sale be annulled due to "defective" procedures.

The elderly couple argued that two of the three majority owners who had applied to the STB for the sale order were not authorised to do so. Furthermore, the method of distribution of the sale proceeds was also omitted from the S&P agreement, they said.

But the judge noted the sale had valid CSA and S&P agreements, specifying the methods of distributing proceeds. He said the committee acted in good faith, as the $88.1-million sale price was above the valuation and reserve price.

He dismissed the appeal with costs.