http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...costs-20120919
BLOCKED HORIZON TOWERS SALE
Minority owners sue over costs
They are claiming $585k from first sales committee's chairman, member
Published on Sep 19, 2012
By Esther Teo Property Reporter
MINORITY owners who won a landmark court ruling to overturn the collective sale of Horizon Towers returned to the High Court this week as fallout from the bitter dispute continues.
They are suing Mr Arjun Samtani, the chairman of the first sales committee, and committee member Tan Kah Gee over costs incurred while trying to block the collective sale.
Both men were named as the prime movers of the sale by the Court of Appeal in its 2009 ruling to disallow the transaction of the Leonie Hill Road property.
The three sets of minority owners, comprising five plaintiffs in all, are claiming a total of $585,000 in costs and expenses incurred in a series of hearings that eventually killed the sale. They were earlier awarded $330,000 by the Court of Appeal in a separate action after the deal was quashed.
In the hearing, which started on Monday, Mr Samtani and Mr Tan contend that the claim is unsustainable since costs were already determined by the Court of Appeal. At that 2009 hearing, the plaintiffs did not seek any costs orders personally against the defendants, they pointed out.
In his opening statement, Mr Tan said that the plaintiffs' claim is "manifestly excessive and unreasonably incurred". He added that he did not breach his duties as a member of the sales committee and had acted in the best interests of all subsidiary proprietors.
The plaintiffs' alleged loss and damages were also not caused by his alleged breaches, he said. But even if he had breached them as pleaded, their loss and damages were not caused by him, he said.
Mr Samtani pointed out in his opening statement that he resigned from the sales committee in July 2007. Even if he is liable for costs, he contended, it should be limited to the first application taken by the committee for the collective sale of the property before his resignation. This would mean that he is not liable for any costs in view of the 2009 decision by the Court of Appeal, he said.
The minority owners argue that the Court of Appeal's finding that Mr Samtani and Mr Tan breached their fiduciary duties means that the two men were also the cause of the plaintiffs' losses.
The alleged breaches include failing to declare their purchase of additional units around the transaction time and failing to improve the chances of obtaining a better price for the property.
Senior Counsel Kannan Ramesh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership, who is acting for the minority owners, also argued that Mr Tan and Mr Samtani were effectively saying that the court should now come to a different conclusion from that handed down by the Court of Appeal.
This is something that they could not do, he said.
[email protected]