Horizon Towers - Omission May Be Punishable

Lawyer calls error of missing pages a 'serious breach'

TO SENIOR Counsel K Shanmugam, who represents the prospective buyer in the botched $500-million en bloc sale of Horizon Towers, it was simply a matter of picking up where the deal fell apart due to a technicality.

But to his opponent, the technicality was in fact a "false declaration" and a "crime" that might have attracted civil penalties like a fine or even a jail term.

The sale committee of the 210-unit condominium had taken the minority owners to court in an appeal against a Strata Titles Board (STB) ruling that scuttled the en bloc sale, after the board found three pages missing from the sale order application in August.

The missing pages thwarted the deal and sparked off a separate lawsuit from Horizon Partners Private Limited (HPPL) — the consortium buying the development — against the majority owners for failing to file a proper application.

Wrapping up his submission in court yesterday, in the case between the sale committee and minority owners, Mr Shanmugam said one way of solving the problem was to amend the mistakes in the filing procedure and continue where the parties left off.

"Our interest is to see the sale through and we've publicly stated we have no interest of claiming damages," he said.

Representing four minority owners, Senior Counsel K S Rajah called the omission of the pages a "serious breach" and a "false" declaration to a statutory board, where perpetrators could be investigated by the Attorney-General's Chambers.

The civil penalties for a false statutory declaration include imprisonment and/or a fine, he added.

Describing how HPPL was "holding a gun" to the heads of owners by taking them to court, Mr Rajah said his clients, in turn, could have reported the false declaration. "Then we, too, would have a gun to their heads," he said.

Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, representing one minority owner, told Justice Choo Han Teck that the court had allowed intervention by Mr Shanmugam to help it decide whether or not the STB had erred in its ruling.

Instead, Mr Shanmugam "overstayed his welcome" by submitting a "shopping list" of what he wants the court to direct, said Mr Hwang.

Similar submissions were made by Mr Ramesh Kannan, who represents three minority owners, on why the STB decision should not be overturned.

The hearing continues today with Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah — acting for the majority owners — rebutting points brought up by the lawyers representing minority owners.