Horizon Towers Case - Counsel: Buyers' Lawyer Has 'Outstayed Welcome'

Source : The Business Times, October 3, 2007

Minority owners' counsel point to several defects in application

The Horizon Towers appeal continued in the High Court yesterday, with the minority owners - those who didn't agree to the en bloc sale - presenting their objections as to why the Strata Titles Board's (STB) decision should not be overturned.

And while it was a distinctly more muted session than the previous day's, sly barbs were still exchanged between the various lawyers - with the atmosphere remaining charged.

The inclusion of the buyers - Hotel Properties (HPL) and its partners - represented by Allen & Gledhill (A&G) in this appeal has been the source of much consternation among the other parties and it obviously continued to rankle some of the lawyers yesterday.

Senior Counsel KS Rajah of Harry Elias Partnership, who represents a group of minority owners, said A&G's lawsuit was akin to 'holding a gun to the heads' of the owners. 'And yet they dare to come into this courtroom and preach to us what's right and what's wrong,' Mr Rajah complained.

Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, who also represents one of the minorities, took issue with A&G's tactics. He said A&G Senior Counsel K Shanmugam had 'outstayed his welcome in these proceedings' in asking the court to make certain orders for the 'express purpose of influencing a possible outcome' of the suit between the buyers and the majority owners.

The viewing public also didn't spare Mr Shanmugam, who must have felt like the party's most unpopular guest. Members of the gallery booed him when he said: 'We are not in the business of suing people except in the case of serious misconduct.'

This ongoing appeal is meant for the High Court to determine if it should set aside STB's decision in August to dismiss Horizon Towers' collective sale application, on the grounds that it was defective because it was missing three signatory pages. The buyers have, in the meantime, sued the majority owners over the botched application. That suit has been stayed, pending - among other things - the outcome of this appeal.

Doreen Siow, a former member of the sales committee and one of the majority owners, turned up to witness the court proceedings yesterday - braving the torrent of criticism that has been levelled against her. It is A&G's position that Ms Siow tried to sabotage the en bloc sale.

The emotional outbursts from the crowd prompted Mr Shanmugam to comment that 'this should not be treated as a circus' - which moved Justice Choo Han Teck to tell the court officer to keep the public gallery in order.

Mr Shanmugam went on to remind the court and its participants that his clients' interests are in line with those of the majority owners of Horizon Towers - which is, to see the collective sale through.

The afternoon was taken up by the minority owners' lawyers, who argued that STB's decision should be upheld. Mr Hwang and Kannan Ramesh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership both agreed that neither STB nor the High Court had the jurisdiction to amend the defects in the collective sale application, and cited various statutes and case law to support their position.

Mr Ramesh also pointed out that STB has since 2000 required strict compliance with collective sale applications and that, even if the non-compliance were of a technical nature - as the majority sellers and buyers are arguing - it would still strip the board of its jurisdiction to rule a defective application as being valid.

Mr Ramesh and Mr Hwang also agreed that there were more defects in the application than just the three missing pages. Mr Hwang related how, in August, he was interrupted in his cross-examination of the first witness at the STB hearing - when the board decided suddenly to throw out the application. He said there were 'lots of other cases of discrepancies' which hadn't yet been heard and would have to be brought up if the case was sent back to STB. 'So it isn't just a matter of these small technical issues,' he said.

Mr Rajah took a more impassioned tack, saying the missing three pages 'isn't just a technicality, it's a crime'. He also told the court that the law is meant to protect the minorities.

The hearing will continue today, with the majority owners making their replies to the minorities' submissions. Judge Choo has indicated he will take a week to rule on the matter.