Judge rules that Mitre Hotel site will be sold

April 16, 2007

Decade-old family feud over $100m property back in court

Relatives fighting one man who is 'blocking' efforts to sell Killiney Road property

By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent


A 10-YEAR family feud over a prime plot of land in Killiney Road will begin to unfold in court today, with the stakes estimated to be as high as $100 million.

The fight is between Mr Chiam Heng Hsien - who owns a 10 per cent share of the land - and his relatives.

Mr Chiam, who runs the family-owned Mitre Hotel lodging house located at the site, has managed to block their efforts to sell the plot for the past 10 years.

The 40,000 sq ft site - half the size of a football field - was set a $72 million price tag in court a decade ago, but the sale could top $100 million in today's market, given its location just off Orchard Road.

The property was rent-controlled and the hotel proprietors had to pay only $660 a month from 1955 to 2001 - when rent control was abolished.

The family tussle began in 1996 when Mr Chiam, now 61, fought off a move to sell.

His cousin Chiam Heng Luan, in his 90s, and the latter's son Chiam Ai Thong had then sought a court order to let the sale go ahead.

The High Court allowed the sale, but refused to decree that it could be sold with vacant possession.

This was because the hotel still had a rent control tenancy and was not a party to the proceedings.

Justice Kan Ting Chiu then held that the would-be sellers could either negotiate with the hotel owners to vacate the property or take court action to get possession.

Mr Chiam Heng Hsien had then reportedly asked for $21 million to move out and allow the sale.

He was rebuffed and the sale plans were derailed, but a series of legal battles followed.

The hotel ceased to operate in 2002 and is now being run as a lodging house.

Mr Chiam Heng Hsien's relatives, who collectively own more than 80 per cent of the site, are asking the court to declare that the business managing the lodging house is only a tenant and that they have the right to terminate the tenancy.

But Mr Chiam Heng Hsien is arguing that the interests of a partnership set up in the 1940s to run the hotel override the pact between the co-owners to sell the property.

He contends that the partnership has a contractual licence to remain on the property and continue its business for as long as it wishes.

His lawyers, from Wong Partnership, say that even if the court rules against this, the partnership should get a share of the sale payout.

He wants the court to look at the history of the case, the expectations of the hotel partners and the money they have put into the property over 50 years.

But the plaintiffs, through Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal, deny that such a licence exists.

They say the hotel owners were served with a quit notice last March and should vacate the site.

They are asking the court to allow the sale to proceed and, if necessary, decide later whether the hotel proprietors should get a share.

They want a sale by tender this time around and the price to be decided by the market.

They do not want a reserve price to be fixed as was done in 1996, when bids that followed were only slightly higher - leading to suspicion that the minimum price tag had been leaked.

Although the parties lined up for the case comprised initially of five plaintiffs led by Mr Chiam Heng Luan against eight defendants led by Mr Chiam Heng Hsien, the other defendants have since then indicated agreement to the sale, leaving Mr Chiam Heng Hsien as the sole opponent.

[email protected]

Tussle for hotel goes back 10 years
April 18, 2007

THIS is not the first time that Mitre Hotel is caught in a legal tussle.

In 1996, Justice Kan Ting Chiu granted two orders on 21 Aug and 18Sep 1996 for Mitre Hotel to be sold.

Under the orders, the co-owners had to agree on the terms and conditions of the sale.

Accordingly, the property was put up for sale on 16 Dec 1996.

Property consultant Jones Lang Wootton, which was appointed as agents, put up a signboard outside the property, inviting interested parties to tender for it.

In the latest legal battle, Ms Chiam Ai Thong claimed in her affidavit, that Mr Chiam Heng Hsien had pasted a notice on the signboard urging interested buyers to contact him for details on 'hidden facts'.

She also claimed that on 20 Dec 1996, Mr Chiam wrote to The Business Times, hoping to frustrate the sale.

The co-owners who wanted to sell the property then decided to take legal action against Mr Chiam.

On 7 Jan 1997, Judicial Commissioner Amarjeet Singh issued an injunction asking Mr Chiam not to prevent the sale of the property.

When the tender closed on 23 Jan 1997, three bids were received.

One buyer offered more than $50million, while two others offered more than $72m and $73m respectively.

Ms Chiam claimed that except for Mr Chiam, all the co-owners decided that one of the two higher bids was acceptable.

She also claimed that at a meeting on 27 Jan 1997, Mr Chiam demanded $29m for him to vacate the premises.

Except for Mr Chiam, the other co-owners wrote to the High Court registrar seeking an appointment before Justice Kan.

They wanted Justice Kan to issue an order for vacant possession of the property.

But Justice Kan felt that the issue of vacant possession was not within the scope of the 1996 orders.

On 13 Feb 1997, Ms Chiam and her father applied for an order to compel Mr Chiam to vacate the property, but it was rejected on 20 Sep 1997. The proposed sale fell through.

MITRE HOTEL DISPUTE

Why does S'pore's $10m UNCLE still take the bus?

So frugal, but relatives claim he wants more money

By Crystal Chan

April 18, 2007

HE suffers from arthritis and walks with a limp. He pushes a shopping trolley around.

He commutes by bus.

Yesterday, his lunch was a $2cheeseburger and a cup of water from a fast food joint at Funan Digitalife Mall.

To top it off, Mr Chiam Heng Hsien,62, lives in a rundown building, albeit in the heart of town.

So is he yet another Singaporean struggling to make ends meet in his golden years?

Far from it. He is at the centre of a multi-million dollar property dispute.

The Killiney Road building - formerly known as Mitre Hotel - where MrChiam spends his nights is valued at $100million.

And the elderly man has a 10per cent stake in it.

His family lives in another property near Orchard Road.

The Killiney Road property has an area of more than 3,700 sq m, or about half the size of a football field.

If the property is sold now, MrChiam could walk away with $10m, according to court papers.

He was the manager of the former Mitre Hotel, which sits diagonally across the road from the SingTel building.

The hotel ceased operations in 2001, a post-9/11 casualty.

And over the years, the place has become dilapidated.

Still, Mr Chiam, who took over the business after his father died in 1961, is oblivious to the state of the building.

FAMILY FEUD

But things are not as simple as they seem.

Mr Chiam is now embroiled in a family feud that went to court yesterday. He is opposing bids by his 10 relatives to sell the Killiney Road site.

This is not the first time that MrChiam has crossed swords with his relatives in court. (See report on facing page).

Mr Chiam turned up at the Supreme Court with a shopping trolley yesterday.

Dressed in a white short-sleeved shirt and grey pants, he limped into Court 6B.

He was unfazed by the media attention, smiling for the camera whenThe New Paper photographed him.

When approached by The New Paper, he explained: 'I need the trolley because my bad legs prevent me from carrying heavy things.

'The trolley contains my documents.'

When the hearing ended at 5pm, MrChiam took a bus back home.

He said: 'It's cheaper to take a bus. Besides, the bus stops right outside my home.

'I have my dinner at home, but I sleep at the Mitre Hotel every night. Otherwise, there's no one else to take care of the place.'

THRIFTY

He may be thrifty when it comes to food and transport, but he has apparently spared no expenses while assembling his legal team.

He has hired Mr Andre Maniam and Ms Koh Swee Yen from Wong Partnership - one of the top law firms here.

Mr Chiam said: 'My cousin (Chiam Heng Luan) has hired Drew & Napier so I must also get a top law firm to represent me.'

The cousin is represented by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal.

Lawyers estimate that Mr Chiam's fees could come up to $200,000 as the trial has been set for eight days.

The animosity between the two sides was obvious in court.

Besides sitting on different sides of the courtroom, Mr Chiam and five of his relatives did not greet each other, nor did they make any eye contact.

And while his relatives chatted among themselves, Mr Chiam cut a lonely figure.

Even his lawyers chatted amicably with his relatives' lawyers before the hearing began.

Mr Singh's cross-examination of MrChiam suggested the latter is holding out for more money.

The lawyer produced three items to show that Mr Chiam was willing to sell the site if the price was right.

Firstly, in documents filed for a similar legal action in 1997, Mr Chiam indicated he was prepared to accept $21m to move out. The sale later fell through.

Secondly, in an interview with The Straits Times in February 2004, he said he wanted to see the place sold in his lifetime.

And in a sworn statement he made for the present proceedings, he said he was 'amenable to negotiate' with his co-owners to vacate the place, even if the court ruled in his favour.

He explained that he thought that vacating the place for $21m in 1997 was the best choice at the time, but did not say why he changed his mind.

As for the interview with The Straits Times, Mr Chiam said: 'Matters will be more complicated if the place were to be sold after I pass away, because my children don't know anything about it.'

His relatives giggled and shook their heads as he explained himself.

Mr Chiam denied Mr Singh's suggestion that he wanted the place sold in his lifetime so he could get the money.

But he also conceded that he was prepared to 'talk terms' if his co-owners wanted to sell the place.

Mr Chiam's case is that his relatives have no right to evict him as a 1948 partnership agreement purportedly gives the hotel's owners the right to use the place for as long as they like.

The hearing continues today.

Orchard property worth $100m, but it's a dump. Man who runs place invites judge to...

Come check out the place

By Crystal Chan

April 19, 2007


RAT-infested grounds.

Mosquito-breeding receptacles.

Leaking roofs.

Broken and dirty-looking toilets.

Worn-out furniture. Algae-stained walls.

They are the remains of the former Mitre Hotel at 145 Killiney Road.

Yet this dump is worth $100 million because of its prime location off Orchard Road.

Even Mr Chiam Heng Hsien, 62, the man who runs the place - and sleeps there - looks an unlikely resident.

He looks neat, wearing his usual neatly-pressed shirts and trousers to court, where he is battling 10 of his relatives who want to sell the place.

Mr Chiam, who is no pauper, even invited Justice Judith Prakash to visit the place when she asked if it was possible to do so.

The judge, who is presiding over the trial, appeared amused.

Although the hotel ceased operations soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks because business was affected, Mr Chiam continued to profit from the place.

He collected rentals from people who still wanted to lease the place for functions.

Yes, there were people who do, even though the place is in dire need of a facelift.

If you took cans of beer to the place, Mr Chiam charged a corkage of $1.50 to $2 per can.

DECREPIT

Occasionally, the place still provided lodging for old customers who didn't mind the that the place had become decrepit.

The mattresses in the rooms were covered with bedsheets only when there were guests, to prevent the linens from collecting dust.

These details of the site's state of disrepair were revealed in court yesterday, on the second day of the legal battle between Mr Chiam and 10 of his relatives.

He is opposing bids by his relatives to sell the place so they can take the cash, claiming that a partnership agreement allows him to stay there infinitely.

But his relatives allege that Mr Chiam, who has a 10-per-cent stake in the property, is merely holding out for more money.

Yesterday, it was also revealed that Mr Chiam owns an HUDC apartment in Farrer Court. The whole area could fetch $1 billion in an impending en-bloc sale.

Taking the stand for the second day, Mr Chiam fended off accusations that his neglect had caused the property to become run-down.

His relatives have said that, given the dilapidation, it is better for the place to be sold and redeveloped.

NOT UNKEMPT

Despite being shown photographs detailing the ruins of the 130-year-old building, Mr Chiam refused to admit the place was unkempt.

Yesterday, for everything that his relatives' lawyer threw at him, Mr Chiam had prompt answers and explanations. (See report at bottom of facing page.)

When asked by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal if the property was well-maintained, Mr Chiam replied: 'It's very old. It's more than 100 years old and you need money to maintain the structure.'

He went as far as to insist that the place was well-maintained, when photos showed damning evidence of the place looking otherwise.

His explanation: 'We had a cleaner who worked in the afternoon four to five days a week. It was not well-kept, but it was well-maintained.'

Unconvinced, Mr Singh suggested that the truth was that Mr Chiam simply refused to give the place a facelift, and that resulted in the hotel going out of business.

The lawyer produced a 2004 Straits Times report mentioning that the Hotel Licensing Board refused to renew Mitre's licence if it was not renovated.

To that, Mr Chiam said: 'Yes, but the board told us we could continue letting out rooms, without providing room service. We don't need a licence to let out rooms.'

As for the leaking roof, Mr Chiam explained that there was little he could do, given the building's age.

RATS

'This is a very old building. You fix one part and then another part has a problem,' he said.

Sometimes, Mr Chiam's reasons did not make sense.

To Mr Singh's claim that the property was infested with rats, he replied: 'Rats are sensitive to food. When people went to the place, they ate and left the scraps around. So the rats came.'

Laughing, Mr Singh countered: 'The problem is, we all leave food around our homes, but rats don't come.'

At this point, Justice Prakash smiled and asked if she could see the place for herself, to which Mr Chiam replied: 'Your Honour, you're always welcome.'

Mr Singh moved on, pointing out that Mr Chiam was fined $6,000 in 2004 for breeding mosquitoes.

Denying guilt, Mr Chiam claimed he was set up. He said: 'Some powerful neighbours complained about me to the authorities. There were many mosquitoes in the drain behind the hotel, but nothing was done.'

The hearing continues today, with MrChiam's relative, Ms Chiam Ai Thong, taking the stand.

Exchanges in court yesterday
April 19, 2007

YESTERDAY saw a sharp exchange of words in court as MrChiam Heng Hsien refuted allegations that he failed to upkeep the former Mitre Hotel.

Here are some of the exchanges between him and Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal, who acts for Mr Chiam's relatives.

Mr Singh: The property is in shambles?

Mr Chiam: Not really.

Mr Singh: It's in good condition and well-maintained?

Mr Chiam: It's very old and you need more money to maintain the structure.

Mr Singh: Would you agree that the property is in a severe state of disrepair? It's unkempt and not properly maintained at all?

Mr Chiam: Not true.

Mr Singh: Let's take a look at some of the photographs that were taken by my client in 2005. Are you seriously suggesting that looking at these photographs, that the property is well-kept?

Mr Chiam: We had a cleaner who came in the afternoon four to five days a week. It was not well-kept but it was well-maintained.

Mr Singh: The place is rat-infested?

Mr Chiam: Rats are sensitive to food. The rats came to the place only when there were food scraps around.

Mr Singh: The problem is, we all leave food around our homes, but rats don't come. (Mr Chiam kept silent.)

Mr Singh: Up till 1995, very few repairs were done to the property? There is a leaking roof needing remedy. The co-owners received notices by the Government because the building was not well-maintained.

Mr Chiam: I maintained it but the building is more than 100 years old. I engaged a structural engineer to see the place.

Mr Singh: The co-owners received another notice in 2002 - the problem repeated itself.

Mr Chiam: This is a very old building. You fix one part and then another part has a problem.

The case so far
April 19, 2007

A FACTION of the Chiam family wants to sell the former Mitre Hotel.

Given its location off Orchard Road, the area, which is half the size of a football field, could fetch $100 million in today's sizzling property market.

But Mr Chiam Heng Hsien stands in the way.

He has a 10-per-cent stake in the property and claims a 1948 partnership agreement allows the hotel's owners to occupy the site infinitely.

Mr Chiam's relatives, led by Sloane Court Hotel founder Chiam Heng Luan, have rubbished his claim.

It was suggested in court yesterday that

Mr Chiam had fabricated this claim as he no longer enjoyed rent control.

Tenants of rent-controlled properties could not be evicted. The rentals could not be increased either. But this law was abolished in April 2001.

Yesterday, Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal said Mr Chiam Heng Hsien came up with the partnership agreement claim so he could continue paying a peppercorn rent of only $264 per month to live in the property, because he was no longer protected by rent control.

This is not the first time that the Mitre Hotel's owners are caught in a legal tussle. In 1996, the High Court granted an order for it to be sold.

The owners received bids of about $70 million, but the sale fell through because

Mr Chiam kept objecting to the deal.

May 1, 2007

Judge rules that Mitre Hotel site will be sold

All co-owners, save one 'lone ranger', have no ambitions to revive it
By K.C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent


http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/2...t1632ccxk6.jpg
FOR SALE: The prime lot will be sold by public tender. -- WANG HUI FEN


AFTER being gridlocked for more than a decade by squabbling relatives, the Mitre Hotel site off Orchard Road, estimated to be worth around $100 million, will finally go under the hammer.

Justice Judith Prakash gave the go-ahead for the site to be sold by public tender, after summoning the feuding parties to the High Court yesterday afternoon.

The family tussle began in 1996 when Mr Chiam Heng

Hsien, 61, fought off a move by his cousin Chiam Heng

Luan, 93, and the latter's daughter Chiam Ai Thong to obtain a court order to sell the site.

The High Court had then allowed the sale, but refused to decree that it could be sold as a vacant site.

The dissenting Mr Chiam remained in the hotel until early last year, when five parties led by Mr Chiam Heng Luan, who together own 45 per cent of the property, filed another suit against eight other parties, led by Mr Chiam Heng Hsien.

The younger Chiam, who is represented by lawyers Andre Maniam and Koh Swee Yen, is managing partner of the hotel and still runs the premises as an improvised boarding house.

But by the time the court case began at the beginning of last week, he was the only one holding out against all the others.

The rest were in agreement with the elder Chiam, who was represented by Senior Counsel Hapreet Singh Nehal.

They wanted Mr Chiam Heng Hsien to vacate the land so they could sell it as a 'vacant possession'. But Mr Chiam, who owns 10 per cent of the property, resisted, arguing that a 1948 agreement allowed the hotel operators to squat on the land indefinitely until a fair compensation is paid.

Justice Prakash observed last Thursday that all the co-owners, except Mr Chiam Heng Hsien, had given up their lease on the building, leaving him as the sole tenant.

Describing him as a 'lone ranger', she noted none of the property's co-owners shared his ambition to revive Mitre Hotel.

Yesterday, Justice Prakash not only ordered Mr Chiam Heng Hsien to clear out, but also laid down the rules for the sale.

She ruled that a valuation should be done on the 40,000 sq ft site - about half the size of a football field - to be arranged by law firm Drew & Napier. The valuation, she said, must be kept confidential.

If the tender price exceeds the valuation, the owners will have the option to accept the bid. But if the offers do not meet the valuation price, there should be no sale.

She also ordered that Mr Chiam Heng Hsien vacate the site no later than four weeks before completion of the sale.

It is understood the sale could be conducted within three months, if there is no appeal against the judgment.

The prime land, located in Killiney Road, is expected to draw keen interest. Around 1997, there was an offer to buy the site for more than $72 million.

That offer could not go through, according to court records.

Justice Prakash also ordered the net proceeds of the sale to be kept in a stakeholders' account until she decides if the partnership that owns the hotel should be paid compensation.

It is understood the hotel's partners have spent more than $300,000 since the early 1970s renovating and maintaining the building before its days as a hotel ended in 2004.

[email protected]

Judge says to only shareholder against sale:

Sell it, and move out

Mitre hotel verdict

By Crystal Chan

May 02, 2007


THE verdict is out: Mitre Hotel will be sold.

The hotel, which survived a court-ordered sale in 1997, will not ride out another storm.

Yesterday, Justice Judith Prakash ordered that the property at Killiney Road - said to be worth $100 million because it sits on 40,000 sq ft of prime land - be sold with vacant possession.

This means that its sole occupant, Mr Chiam Heng Hsien, 62, has to move out once the sale is completed.

Judgment on how much compensation Mr Chiam should be awarded, has been reserved.

The court battle had pitted him against the property's 11 other owners, who want the place to be sold.

Yesterday's ruling created more hostility between the warring camps, who were not on speaking terms even before the trial.

Mr Chiam's head was bowed and he looked dejected as the decision was read out.

In contrast, his cousin, Ms Chiam Siew Juat, the only other co-owner who was present yesterday, smiled.

The level of trust among the Chiams is so low that after yesterday's decision, two of the family members wanted Justice Prakash to bar anyone from impeding the sale.

Speaking for Mr Chiam Heng Chow and Mr Chiam Heng Tin who hold a 10 per cent stake in the property, lawyer Michael Moey said: 'When the property was ordered to be sold in 1996, MrChiam Heng Hsien put up a notice on the property agent's signboard, asking buyers to contact him about 'hidden facts'.'

Justice Prakash declined, saying that nobody had impeded the sale yet.

Mr Chiam was upset when TheNew Paper approached him outside the Supreme Court.

He said of the judgment: 'Of course I'm not satisfied. But the judge has given her decision and I have to accept it.'

When asked if he would appeal, he said: 'I still have to think about it. It's okay for me to move out. I fought this court case only as a matter of principle.'

During the trial, Mr Chiam claimed his relatives had no right to evict him as a 1948 partnership agreement allegedly allowed the hotel owners to live on the property indefinitely.

His relatives, led by Sloane Court Hotel founder Chiam Heng Luan, disagreed, saying the claim wasfabricated.

They accused him of holding out for more compensation.

In his testimony, Mr Chiam, who owns 10 per cent of the property, said he would sell the place if he was compensated fairly, without specifying an amount.

He declined to tell The New Paper where he plans to live when the property is sold.

He said: 'Of course I'm sentimental about the place. I've been living there since I was a child.'

His wife and two daughters live in a terrace house off Grange Road and he has an apartment in Farrer Court, a HUDC estate.

Mr Chiam also admitted that when his relatives tried to sell the place - half the size of a football field in 1997 - he pasted the notice that Mr Moey described.

'I wanted potential buyers to know about the 'hidden facts' so I wouldn't be held responsible should anything happen,' he explained.

But he refused to talk about the 'hidden facts' when The New Paper pressed him.

His lawyer, Mr Andre Maniam of Wong Partnership, said us that he will study the decision before planning a potential appeal.

Justice Prakash also ordered that the sale be done via public tender, with Drew & Napier handling the conveyancy, which means transferring property from one person to the other.

Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal, who is from that law firm, represented five of the property's owners at the trial.

The minimum bidding price will be set by an appointed valuer, and at least eight of the owners have to agree on the final sale price.

Justice Prakash also acceded to the owners' request that the valuations be kept confidential to avoid leaks to interested property developers.

Mr Singh declined comment on his clients' behalf, as they are 'very private people'.

The other owners, through their lawyers, said they are pleased with the ruling.

36-STOREY CONDO SOON?

Mr Eugene Lim, business development manager at ERA Realty, said the plot's building ratio of 2.8 means a development of up to 36 storeys could be built.

Mr Lim said: 'A 112-unit condominium with an area of 1,200 sq ft for each unit could be built.'

While he estimated the apartments could sell for around $2,000 per sq ft today, another property consultant said there could be a problem setting a high price.

The consultant, who declined to be named, said: 'There's a long strip of land forming the driveway to the hotel. That strip of land is useless and could pose a problem when deciding on the price.'