mr funny
10-07-11, 06:28
http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/Story/STIStory_688723.html
Jul 9, 2011
Property agent wins $438k in fees on appeal
She had helped businessman get $1.4m discount
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
A PROPERTY agent who helped a businessman buy all the 11 units in an apartment project for $37 million will get her $437,870 commission, after the Court of Appeal reversed a High Court judgment that she gets nothing.
Businessman Ho Kiau Seng, 65, had argued that the payout was due only if Ms Agnes Foo had gone on to help resell the units to others.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang and V.K. Rajah, was not convinced and, at a hearing on Wednesday, set aside a High Court decision in January that went in his favour.
Ms Agnes Foo, 46, said yesterday the case had taken her to the brink of financial disaster and 'everything for me would have ended if I had lost the appeal'.
She credited her lawyer Foo Soon Yien, who went to see her just two days before the deadline for the notice of appeal expired in February.
The agent, whose parents and siblings had accompanied her to the Wednesday hearing, was in tears when the court allowed her appeal.
In 2007, she was helping to market a housing project in Buckley Road near Newton when she met Mr Ho, a managing director of a steel products firm.
Three months later, he signed a deal to buy all 11 units in his personal capacity.
He made two payouts to her over a period of nine months, for a total of $165,956. They had different explanations for the payments. She claimed they were partial payments of her commission. He said they were advances for her expenses and made at her request.
She claimed that Mr Ho had agreed to pay a sum equivalent to 30 per cent of the savings she had obtained for him.
This worked out to $437,870.
Her lawyer from Bernard & Rada Law Corp argued that the High Court was wrong to hold that it was unusual for housing agents to collect commission from the buyer of a property, as in this case.
She claimed that the 1.14 per cent of the sale price that was to be paid to Ms Agnes Foo was not unusual and accorded with commercial reality.
The agent had helped Mr Ho get a $1.4 million discount in buying the properties in September 2007 and the deal was a personal one between the two, and not between him and the agency she worked for.
About a year later, when Ms Agnes Foo claimed she had found a buyer for his units, Mr Ho issued her a letter appointing her as the exclusive agent to sell them for $49.7 million, or at $2,000 per sq ft.
But she failed to find a buyer at the time - October 2008, during the financial crisis in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse. The units remain unsold.
At issue was whether the commission due to her was conditional upon her reselling the units after having helped Mr Ho acquire them from the developer.
His lawyer Hee Theng Fong argued Mr Ho could not be expected to pay her a commission when no profits had been realised as none of the units was sold.
But the agent's lawyer said that as Mr Ho had issued the two cheques totalling $165,000 in her name, this belied his claim that the agreement was with the agency she worked for and not with her personally.
The units, which are now rented out, were priced at about $1,550 psf in 2007 at the time they were bought. A check showed their price has soared to more than $2,300 psf - which means Mr Ho will not be a loser for not having the units sold, as the court alluded to in passing.
It is understood the appeals court may issue the grounds for its decision in due course.
[email protected]
Jul 9, 2011
Property agent wins $438k in fees on appeal
She had helped businessman get $1.4m discount
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
A PROPERTY agent who helped a businessman buy all the 11 units in an apartment project for $37 million will get her $437,870 commission, after the Court of Appeal reversed a High Court judgment that she gets nothing.
Businessman Ho Kiau Seng, 65, had argued that the payout was due only if Ms Agnes Foo had gone on to help resell the units to others.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang and V.K. Rajah, was not convinced and, at a hearing on Wednesday, set aside a High Court decision in January that went in his favour.
Ms Agnes Foo, 46, said yesterday the case had taken her to the brink of financial disaster and 'everything for me would have ended if I had lost the appeal'.
She credited her lawyer Foo Soon Yien, who went to see her just two days before the deadline for the notice of appeal expired in February.
The agent, whose parents and siblings had accompanied her to the Wednesday hearing, was in tears when the court allowed her appeal.
In 2007, she was helping to market a housing project in Buckley Road near Newton when she met Mr Ho, a managing director of a steel products firm.
Three months later, he signed a deal to buy all 11 units in his personal capacity.
He made two payouts to her over a period of nine months, for a total of $165,956. They had different explanations for the payments. She claimed they were partial payments of her commission. He said they were advances for her expenses and made at her request.
She claimed that Mr Ho had agreed to pay a sum equivalent to 30 per cent of the savings she had obtained for him.
This worked out to $437,870.
Her lawyer from Bernard & Rada Law Corp argued that the High Court was wrong to hold that it was unusual for housing agents to collect commission from the buyer of a property, as in this case.
She claimed that the 1.14 per cent of the sale price that was to be paid to Ms Agnes Foo was not unusual and accorded with commercial reality.
The agent had helped Mr Ho get a $1.4 million discount in buying the properties in September 2007 and the deal was a personal one between the two, and not between him and the agency she worked for.
About a year later, when Ms Agnes Foo claimed she had found a buyer for his units, Mr Ho issued her a letter appointing her as the exclusive agent to sell them for $49.7 million, or at $2,000 per sq ft.
But she failed to find a buyer at the time - October 2008, during the financial crisis in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse. The units remain unsold.
At issue was whether the commission due to her was conditional upon her reselling the units after having helped Mr Ho acquire them from the developer.
His lawyer Hee Theng Fong argued Mr Ho could not be expected to pay her a commission when no profits had been realised as none of the units was sold.
But the agent's lawyer said that as Mr Ho had issued the two cheques totalling $165,000 in her name, this belied his claim that the agreement was with the agency she worked for and not with her personally.
The units, which are now rented out, were priced at about $1,550 psf in 2007 at the time they were bought. A check showed their price has soared to more than $2,300 psf - which means Mr Ho will not be a loser for not having the units sold, as the court alluded to in passing.
It is understood the appeals court may issue the grounds for its decision in due course.
[email protected]