Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Gillman en bloc sale to proceed

  1. #1
    mr funny is offline Any complaints please PM me
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,129

    Default Gillman en bloc sale to proceed

    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...407785/1/.html

    Appeal to halt Gillman Heights collective sale dismissed

    Posted: 09 February 2009 1845 hrs


    SINGAPORE: The Court of Appeal has dismissed the last-ditch appeal by 10 minority owners of former HUDC estate Gillman Heights to stop its collective sale.

    Minority owners at the huge estate at Alexandra Road have been battling the S$548m collective sale since it was approved by the Strata Titles Board (STB) in 2007.

    This appeal was the last recourse for the minority owners. They had argued that STB was wrong to approve the en bloc deal when the prospective buyers received consent from less than 90 per cent of the owners.

    Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, who represented the minority group, argued in court last week that the en bloc sale of Gillman Heights needed consent from 90 per cent of owners and not the usual 80 per cent.

    His reason was that Gillman Heights obtained its certificate of statutory completion in 2002 and was thus less than 10 years old.

    Under the government's en bloc rules, 90 per cent consent is needed for estates less than 10 years old, and 80 per cent for those older.

    But the Court of Appeal ruled on Monday that only 80 per cent consent was needed for the collective sale of Gillman Heights to go through.

    The ruling sets a precedent for all other HUDC estates which want to go en bloc, and clearly demarcates what criteria should be used in the future.

    CapitaLand and Hotel Properties, with two private funds, inked the deal to buy the estate in 2007.

    - 938LIVE.

  2. #2
    mr funny is offline Any complaints please PM me
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,129

    Default

    http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_336089.html

    Feb 9, 2009

    Gillman Heights en bloc saga

    Appeal dismissed

    By Jessica Cheam


    Monday's ruling sets a precedent for all other HUDC estates which want to go en bloc, and clearly demarcates what criteria should be used in the future. -- PHOTO: CAPITALAND

    SINGAPORE'S highest court on Monday dismissed the appeal by minority owners to stop the en bloc sale of Gillman Heights.

    This brings the former HUDC estate's two-year en bloc saga to an end.

    CapitaLand and Hotel Properties, with two private funds, inked the $548 million deal to buy the estate in 2007. But a group of minority owners, in a last-ditch attempt to stop the collective sale, went to the Court of Appeal to try and overturn the previous High Court's ruling which gave the greenlight.

    The main contention was the date used to calculate the age of the estate, and to a larger extent, the level of consent that was required for the sale to go ahead.

    Monday's ruling sets a precedent for all other HUDC estates which want to go en bloc, and clearly demarcates what criteria should be used in the future.

    In Gillman Heights' case, the judges ruled that 80 per cent was required.

  3. #3
    mr funny is offline Any complaints please PM me
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,129

    Default

    http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/...18264,00.html?

    Published February 10, 2009

    Gillman en bloc sale to proceed

    By UMA SHANKARI


    (SINGAPORE) The Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed an appeal by the minority owners of Gillman Heights to stop the collective sale of the property.

    CapitaLand, Hotel Properties and two private funds agreed to buy the property in 2007 for $548 million. But a group of minority owners have been fighting the sale since it was approved by the Strata Titles Board (STB) that year.

    In a last-ditch attempt to block the sale, the minority owners went to the Court of Appeal to try to overturn a High Court ruling that allowed the sale to go ahead.

    The main issue has been the level of consent needed for the sale to go ahead. Currently, 80 per cent consent is needed if a development is more than 10 years old, and 90 per cent consent if it is less than that.

    The minority owners argued that because Gillman Heights obtained its certificate of statutory completion only in 2002, it needed 90 per cent consent - which the buyers did not have.

    However, the judges ruled yesterday that only 80 per cent is required - which means the sale can go through.

  4. #4
    mr funny is offline Any complaints please PM me
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,129

    Default

    http://www.straitstimes.com/Money/St...ry_336308.html

    February 10, 2009 Tuesday

    Gillman Heights sale gets go-ahead

    Appeals court rules that only 80% consent required for collective sale

    By Jessica Cheam


    THE sale of Gillman Heights has been given the final green light, after Singapore's highest court dismissed a last-ditch plea by minority owners to overturn the sale.

    This marks the end of the two-year en-bloc saga which began when buyers CapitaLand, Hotel Properties and two private funds inked a $548 million deal to buy the 607-unit, 99-year leasehold estate in Alexandra Road in 2007.

    Majority owners yesterday heaved a sigh of relief, while minority owners told The Straits Times they were 'disappointed, but not surprised' at the decision.

    The Court of Appeal's verdict, delivered to a packed courtroom yesterday afternoon, clarifies some ambiguity in the laws surrounding collective sales of former HUDC estates.

    Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, acting for the 10 minority owners, had argued in the appeal's hearing last Tuesday that Gillman Heights needed 90 per cent level of consent because it received its certificate of statutory completion (CSC) and temporary occupation permit (TOP) only in 2002.

    This document is usually used as a reference to determine the age of an estate, which in turn, determines if 80 or 90 per cent level of consent is required for a collective sale. If the development is more than 10 years old, it needs 80 per cent, 90 if it is less than that.

    At Gillman, about 87.54 per cent of owners signed on to the en-bloc sale. A 90 per cent requirement would mean the sale could not go through.

    The estate, although physically completed in 1984, received its CSC and TOP only in 2002 because it had began its privatisation process in 1996.

    Prior to that, it did not need a CSC or TOP because it was not private property.

    Mr Hwang argued that the law would have made a provision for HUDC estates if it did not mean for the usual requirements to apply.

    However, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong yesterday dismissed this, saying that there had been a 'drafting flaw', as a literal interpretation requiring the use of CSC and TOP would have defeated the purpose of the collective sale laws.

    This purpose was to promote the rejuvenation of old estates, and the laws apply to all strata developments, which by definition included privatised HUDC estates, he said. He agreed with a previous High Court ruling that Gillman needed only 80 per cent.

    The sale of Gillman Heights was approved by the Strata Titles Board in late 2007, but minority owners have fought the sale at every turn, appealing STB's decision at the High Court, and when this failed, to the Court of Appeal.

    One minority owner, Mr Kok Chong Weng, said yesterday: 'It's sad we have to lose our homes, but we weren't surprised by the decision.'

    He estimates that total costs of fighting the sale would be more than $300,000 for the minority owners.

    'The costs are high, but we wanted to see the final card and hear it from the highest authority,' he said.

    Another minority owner who declined to be named pointed out that if they had not appealed last year, while the market was still registering high property prices, they would have been unable to buy a replacement unit with the sale proceeds.

    Prices have since fallen, so they are now better placed to buy replacements.

    Majority owners, on the other hand, were relieved at the conclusion of Gillman's long drawn-out collective sale.

    Its sales committee chairman Robert Wiener said: 'It's been in limbo for a long time, now it's finally ended.

    'It's a huge relief for many owners who had bought second properties and were really worried.'

    The sale will now take about three months to compete, and all eyes are on how the CapitaLand-led joint venture will redevelop the estate.

    Analysts that The Straits Times spoke to speculated that the developer might put the estate on the rental market while the property market is in the doldrums.

    Knight Frank director of research and development Nicholas Mak pointed out that the sale price of each unit - about $870,000 to $950,000 is still 'pretty attractive', especially with the current downturn.

    [email protected]

  5. #5
    mr funny is offline Any complaints please PM me
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,129

    Default

    http://www.todayonline.com/articles/301256.asp

    Tuesday, February 10, 2009

    ‘Drafting flaw’ behind saga:

    Teo Xuanwei

    [email protected]


    IN DISMISSING yesterday the last-ditch appeal by 10 minority owners against the collective sale of Gillman Heights (picture), Singapore’s highest court has set down the clear criteria, going forward, for all other privatised HUDC estates that wish to go en bloc.

    In a case that hinged on the completion date of the estate, the Court of Appeal ruled that the age of HUDC estates should be pegged to the date when they became “fit for occupation” instead of when they were awarded the temporary occupation permit (TOP) or certificate of statutory completion (CSC).

    Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, who delivered the judgment, told a packed courtroom that Parliament had indeed intended the law on collective sales to apply to HUDC estates when it was enacted in 1999. But the use of an estate’s TOP or CSC as a point of reference for its age was a “drafting flaw”, he said.

    This created an “omission in respect of privatised HUDC estates” because HUDC estates, which were built as a form of public housing, are only awarded their TOPs or CSCs when privatisation works have been completed.

    There are 18 HUDC estates in Singapore.

    The minority owners’ two-year fight to scupper Ankerite’s$548-million purchase at every turn — through contests before the Strata Titles Board and the High Court previously — had centred around the fact that the 607-unit, 99-year leasehold estate had only received its CSC in 2002, which meant that any collective sale needed 90 per cent approval to be legal.

    The law states that 80 per cent is needed for developments more than 10 years old, and 90 per cent if it is younger.

    In Gillman Heights’ case, only 87.54 per cent of owners had agreed to the sale, but yesterday’s ruling means the estate has been judged to be more than 22 years old because it was completed in December 1994.

    The Appellate Court — comprising CJ Chan, Justice Andrew Phang and Justice V K Rajah — also ordered the 10 appellants to pay the costs of yesterday’s appeal and half of the costs in earlier proceedings after Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, who represented the minority owners, argued that it was “nobody’s fault” that there was drafting flaw in the legislation.

    Some minority owners who spoke to Today said they were “satisfied” with the decision.

    One of them, who declined to be named, said the entire appeal was about “righting the wrong” — which eventually proved to be the drafting flaw.

    “But now that they have admitted that there was a drafting flaw, why are we penalised for it?” he asked, referring to the costs — which is understood to be in the region of $300,000 in total — they would have to bear.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Just curious.. other than the $300,000 that the 10 minority fighters have to foot jointly, is there other cost that these people have to pay?

    I'm thinking that if only they have been 'cooperative' way back when the majority agreed to sell, then the developer would have launched and most probably completely sold the new unit when the market is hot. Now that the market has died, for sure the developer (buyer) will want someone to pay for the lost as a result of the delay right?

    I mean.. what's the use of winning this case when the property market has died?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    -: 07-02-22, 10:17
  2. Gillman Heights sale finally completed
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 7
    -: 23-05-09, 15:55
  3. Gillman Heights en bloc dispute goes to Court of Appeal
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 17-12-08, 17:08
  4. Gillman en bloc sale to proceed
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 5
    -: 07-07-08, 10:29
  5. NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 108
    -: 21-04-08, 11:18

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •