ACERBIC high-powered lawyers, squabbling neighbours pitted against a big-money consortium, and conspiracy theories floating both within, and without, the walls of the courtroom. Throw in some celebrity power — pop singer Ho Yeow Sun and pastor husband Kong Hee own and occupy an apartment in the condo — and the three-day Horizon Towers trial at the High Court this week could well pass as a Singaporean version of Eye for an Eye, the popular American courtroom reality TV show.
Amid all the courtroom theatrics and legal jargon, one could be forgiven for missing out on the main bone of contention in the lawsuit — the three missing pages in the sale order application, which set off a chain of events that now threaten to bankrupt many of the condo owners.
In August, the Strata Titles Board (STB) threw out the proposed $500-million en bloc sale of Horizon Towers, citing technical irregularities.
With Damocles’ sword hanging over the majority owners’ heads — they managed to stave off, for now, the $1-billion lawsuit Horizon Partners Pte Ltd (HPPL) brought against them for loss of profits — they are now asking the High Court to overturn the STB’s decision.
As part of its grounds for the decision, the STB described the three missing execution pages — in which each owner gives his explicit consent to the en bloc sale — as an “incurable defect”. The sale committee had earlier signed a statutory declaration that the collective sale agreement (CSA) filed with the Board contained all required documents.
For the minority owners, the missing pages were tantamount to a false statutory declaration and could be investigated by the Attorney-General’s Chambers, with its perpetrators possibly jailed and/or fined. After all, they maintain, the majority owners had the responsibility to make sure their documents were in order before carrying out a forced eviction.
But the majority owners are trying to play down the significance of what their lawyer Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah described as “clerical errors”. They were purely an oversight, Mr Rajah told the High Court, and after they were brought to the STB’s attention, the majority owners managed to submit the missing pages to the Board.
One of the pages was to contain the signature of Mr Tan Chor Hoon, who bought his apartment after its former owners had signed the Collective Sale Agreement.
The STB application contained only the execution page of the former owners but not Mr Tan’s. Likewise, the execution page of another owner, Mr Lee Pang Hoe Michael, was also “inadvertently left out”.
The third missing page was to contain the signature of unit owner Daniel Gurnawan. While it was actually included in the application, the STB had deemed the “photocopy of a faxed copy” inadmissible — although the Board accepts a photocopy of the original execution page.
Mr Chelva Rajah stressed that, ultimately, the STB had all the necessary documents before it. Thus, the application was “not invalid” and, even if an amendment was needed, it ought to be granted by inserting the missing copies into the annexure to the application.
But the lawyers for the minority owners, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, Senior Counsel K S Rajah and Mr Ramesh Kannan, begged to differ. The lawyers argued that the STB had no power to amend a defective application — a position taken by the STB itself since “any incurable defect puts into question the very existence of the Board”.
The STB works on the basis of convening a tribunal to hear an application. As such, the powers invested in it exist only in relation to a proper application.
The High Court hearing was further complicated by the presence of HPPL and a splinter group of majority owners — most of whom sat on the original sale committee, including Ms Ho and Mr Kong — who had successfully applied to intervene in the legal proceedings.
In what industry players and lawyers describe as a rare move, buyers HPPL — represented by Senior Counsel K Shanmugam — are getting themselves heard in an appeal against an STB decision.
Justice Choo Han Teck had ruled that it would “not be unjust or inconvenient to hear two more voices” and said that he would “mute” them if they were distracting.
Seizing the initiative, Mr Shanmugam tried to lay bare what he claimed was the game plan of the majority owners — who had replaced their original sale committee and its lawyers Drew and Napier in June — two months after the law firm had submitted the sale order application to the STB.
The change was made because the majority owners were apparently unhappy with the fact that neighbouring properties were being sold at much higher prices.
The “real intention” of the majority owners in filing the High Court appeal, according to Mr Shanmugam, was to have the case sent back to the STB in the hope that the minority objectors would raise new arguments — including the claim that the contract was invalid since it had lapsed upon the original sale order deadline of Aug 11 and that the latest sale committee had no power to effect an extension.
Two weeks ago, the owners did agree to extend the deadline by four months. But Mr Shanmugam revealed that up to two days before the resolution, circulars were sent out by some majority owners stating they would only consider the extension if the High Court appeal is granted.
It was only after HPPL’s meeting with some of the owners at Hilton Hotel — in which the consortium made it clear it would seek to intervene in the appeal and expose their game plan — that they apparently changed their minds, said Mr Shanmugam.
He added that the STB’s decision to abort the sale was “understandable”, as it relies heavily on submissions from counsel. And Mr Shanmugam wanted to make sure that the court listened to the perspective of the buyers, whose financial and legal interests would otherwise be undermined.
The STB had said that during its hearing, the majority owners “did not offer an opinion” to the minority owners’ argument that the STB could not allow an amendment.
Not only does HPPL want the court to remit the case back to the STB, it also wants to be allowed to take part in the hearing, a request rejected by the STB during its earlier hearing.
Justice Choo is expected to give his ruling next week. Should the judge dismiss the appeal and allow the STB’s decision to stand, the deal could be thrown into jeopardy and given its dogged intention to see the deal through, HPPL is unlikely to sit by and allow that to happen.
Should the judge allow the appeal, STB is likely to hear the case again and consider it on its merits. And it remains to be seen if minority objectors would try to sink the deal by raising new arguments — as predicted by Mr Shanmugam.
Either way, the end to the long drawn saga — the collective sale process was initiated in May last year — is hardly in sight yet, with more twists and turns along the way.
.jpg)
1 comment:
how many units does the singer has ? many say they have 10
Post a Comment