There was no hearing for Minton on the 2nd. It was only for the lawyers.
As for today's case for Gillman, I will have to wait to be updated.
20 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Straits Times' Jessica Cheam, in a comment piece, said: "Many have said it is "silly" to fight on such a technicality.
But while it might be obvious that the age of the development is more than 20 years, what else do minority owners have to fight on after all? Apart from the little details, what other choice do they have?
These technicalities - however silly they might appear to the man-in-the-street - are the only way for them to achieve their ultimate desired outcome: The overturning the collective sale. And keeping their homes.
All eyes are now on the Court of Appeal's decision next Monday. The appeal will probably not change the future of Gillman Heights. It will likely be demolished, and redeveloped into a new, swanky condo by Capitaland.
But at least for those 10 owners, the appeal means they can truly say they did their best to save their homes."
collective ownership of property always means that the individual will have to go with the majority. to say that the 10 have fought for their homes is to forget that the rest have to defend their right of ownership, and hence selling at their preferred method - ie via enbloc sale. To use desperate, small details may seem as valiant, but the cost is heavy in time. this fiasco has seen a full cycle - at the time of exercise, the prices of property was low - then there was a surge, and now its down again and will be down for a long time. fortunately it is down again, if as in previous cycles and property continues rising for years, then the majority will really suffer insufficient funds to buy another property, when originally it would have been sufficient. That the prices are such also explains why developers cannot pay you that much - they are the risk bearers. When will we realise that no matter wat property we own, even if it is landed, freehold, the home is not for us for eternity. It will have to make way for community interest, or for national interest. Live with this
this ending to the gillman heights saga should spell good news for minton rise's en bloc:
"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.
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. "
In Gillman Heights case, the Court of Appeal rules that the minority bears the full costs of the Court of Appeal proceedings and half of the costs of the other proceedings.
I guess we have to wait for the next High Court session (sometime in late Feb). The minority owners will have to give instructions to their lawyers whether they want a continuance or withdraw the High Court appeal. I think the High Court verdict, if the Minority owners decides to proceed, will 99.9% a foregone conclusion as the Court of Appeal has set a precedent ruling. Wish we can write the final chapter quickly as this has been going on for too long.
It looks like the minority is trying to test the developers' patience and make them throw in the towel. In that way, they can claim victory. But it will come with a price, I am sure.
Hmm. Not sure if that can be considered as a frivolous suit if the lawyers rehashes the arguements and following so close to a ruling in the appeal court on a nearly identical case. I am not a lawyer but this could open up a pandora's box where all sort of law suit may be flying around if people looses money because of the scuppered deal. As neighbours, we should all end this amicably and have a farewell block party once this is over. Cheers :-)
These objectors are really bullies in their own way - rendering the majority powerless while they wait for them to decide. If court of appeal has ruled, what else is there? they are really testing our patience - our meaning the majority. can't we leave on a more pleasant note than this?
The opposing lawyers will need time to settle the issue of costs if the minority wishes to give up. Who is going to pay for the costs of the majority's lawyers and queen counsel? The minority? Would the group be willing? If not, where do we go from here?
the first step is the withdrawal. this will start the finalising of enbloc sale to developer rolling. The issue of cost, the lawyers will have to settle later - probably according to stb recommendations in the first instance, and based on Gillman's eg in the case of the high court - my layman's guess.
I think there is a chance that the developer may give up the purchase as in the Cairnhill Heights case. Lets hope this is the case and we can go back to being neighbours.
Understand if the developer does pull out, we may get to keep the deposit estimated to come to $60K per household. Easy money!
Sorry, to differ. The lawyers and the sales agent will take a cut from this. The didn't work for free. There are two teams of SCs involved and irrespective of whether the sale go through or not, they will bill for their work
We will need to replenish the sinking fund - rememember we were paying low maintenance charges for quite a long time. Then we will need to contribute to the additional funds to restore the estate - leaking pipes, painting, lifts etc.
Know what, there will be probably be rounds of difficult eogm and agms when the maintenance issues and the money issues are brought up. No offence to anyone, but I think it is a near nightmare scenario if the developer walk out.
This is my personal opinion and I respect any differece in view.
Do not forget, a caveat has already been launched against our properties. Unlike the Cairnhill Heights buyer, Minton Rise's buyers have deeper pockets. The price they are paying for this huge piece of land is relatively cheap.
Received letter from WTL over the weekend to update us on the en-bloc status. Must admit not too clear what the letter is trying to say.
Questions I have is why the sense of urgency to push through the sale when we know the developer has got our land for a song? Because of this irrational sense of urgency it seemed that we are caving in to what I would call unnecessary settlement with the objectors. Cannot go into further details here because of the confidentiality.
I would have pushed the issue all the way because the outcomes would favour us. First outcome, High Court grants the sale, losers pay full legal fees for both parties. Second outcome, developer withdraws - we get to keep the 60K. How to lose like that?
Unless there is something else I / We do not know.
Things may not be as simple and clear cut as it seems. If it is, we would not have to engaged SCs to argue the case and to provide adice.
I doubt we will get to 'enjoy' the $60k. In the end when we total up the cost, we probably will have to fork out more money for legal fees, replenishment of the sinking fund and to provide for additional maintenance work which was deferred due to the en-bloc.
In a worst case scenario, the buyer may refuse to extend the sales agreement deadline (I may be wrong but I don't think the buyer will gladly hand over the deposit without making a case against the forfeiture - e.g. undue delay, frivolous court filings etc). In this outcome we will get zero and end up with having to pay the lawyers.
Everyone involved, minority and majority owners, should seek to close this out as soon as possible.
20 comments:
Straits Times' Jessica Cheam, in a comment piece, said: "Many have said it is "silly" to fight on such a technicality.
But while it might be obvious that the age of the development is more than 20 years, what else do minority owners have to fight on after all? Apart from the little details, what other choice do they have?
These technicalities - however silly they might appear to the man-in-the-street - are the only way for them to achieve their ultimate desired outcome: The overturning the collective sale. And keeping their homes.
All eyes are now on the Court of Appeal's decision next Monday. The appeal will probably not change the future of Gillman Heights. It will likely be demolished, and redeveloped into a new, swanky condo by Capitaland.
But at least for those 10 owners, the appeal means they can truly say they did their best to save their homes."
collective ownership of property always means that the individual will have to go with the majority. to say that the 10 have fought for their homes is to forget that the rest have to defend their right of ownership, and hence selling at their preferred method - ie via enbloc sale.
To use desperate, small details may seem as valiant, but the cost is heavy in time. this fiasco has seen a full cycle - at the time of exercise, the prices of property was low - then there was a surge, and now its down again and will be down for a long time. fortunately it is down again, if as in previous cycles and property continues rising for years, then the majority will really suffer insufficient funds to buy another property, when originally it would have been sufficient. That the prices are such also explains why developers cannot pay you that much - they are the risk bearers. When will we realise that no matter wat property we own, even if it is landed, freehold, the home is not for us for eternity. It will have to make way for community interest, or for national interest. Live with this
this ending to the gillman heights saga should spell good news for minton rise's en bloc:
"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.
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. "
In Gillman Heights case, the Court of Appeal rules that the minority bears the full costs of the Court of Appeal proceedings and half of the costs of the other proceedings.
what's the status of the enbloc now?
I guess we have to wait for the next High Court session (sometime in late Feb). The minority owners will have to give instructions to their lawyers whether they want a continuance or withdraw the High Court appeal. I think the High Court verdict, if the Minority owners decides to proceed, will 99.9% a foregone conclusion as the Court of Appeal has set a precedent ruling. Wish we can write the final chapter quickly as this has been going on for too long.
Huh? Late Feb?
Isn't the hearing on for this morning at high court at 9am?
Any news of the outcome of this morning's hearing? Any updates would be appreciated.
Ok, called the lawyers. Case is adjourned to 2nd Mar. Sigh...get on with it already, it's like dragging a dead horse around.
From what i gathered, the minority lawyers are advising their clients to discontinue the case, but ultimately, the decision lies with them.
So, guess it's waiting time AGAIN, from now till 2nd Mar, to see if they will drop the case.
It looks like the minority is trying to test the developers' patience and make them throw in the towel.
In that way, they can claim victory.
But it will come with a price, I am sure.
Hmm. Not sure if that can be considered as a frivolous suit if the lawyers rehashes the arguements and following so close to a ruling in the appeal court on a nearly identical case. I am not a lawyer but this could open up a pandora's box where all sort of law suit may be flying around if people looses money because of the scuppered deal. As neighbours, we should all end this amicably and have a farewell block party once this is over. Cheers :-)
These objectors are really bullies in their own way - rendering the majority powerless while they wait for them to decide. If court of appeal has ruled, what else is there? they are really testing our patience - our meaning the majority. can't we leave on a more pleasant note than this?
The opposing lawyers will need time to settle the issue of costs if the minority wishes to give up.
Who is going to pay for the costs of the majority's lawyers and queen counsel?
The minority? Would the group be willing?
If not, where do we go from here?
the first step is the withdrawal. this will start the finalising of enbloc sale to developer rolling. The issue of cost, the lawyers will have to settle later - probably according to stb recommendations in the first instance, and based on Gillman's eg in the case of the high court - my layman's guess.
any news? am out of the country
I think there is a chance that the developer may give up the purchase as in the Cairnhill Heights case. Lets hope this is the case and we can go back to being neighbours.
Understand if the developer does pull out, we may get to keep the deposit estimated to come to $60K per household. Easy money!
Sorry, to differ. The lawyers and the sales agent will take a cut from this. The didn't work for free. There are two teams of SCs involved and irrespective of whether the sale go through or not, they will bill for their work
We will need to replenish the sinking fund - rememember we were paying low maintenance charges for quite a long time. Then we will need to contribute to the additional funds to restore the estate - leaking pipes, painting, lifts etc.
Know what, there will be probably be rounds of difficult eogm and agms when the maintenance issues and the money issues are brought up. No offence to anyone, but I think it is a near nightmare scenario if the developer walk out.
This is my personal opinion and I respect any differece in view.
The chap who is eyeing for $60K easy money must be "money dreaming" The matter is not so simple as he or she thinks.
Do not forget, a caveat has already been launched against our properties.
Unlike the Cairnhill Heights buyer, Minton Rise's buyers have deeper pockets.
The price they are paying for this huge piece of land is relatively cheap.
Received letter from WTL over the weekend to update us on the en-bloc status. Must admit not too clear what the letter is trying to say.
Questions I have is why the sense of urgency to push through the sale when we know the developer has got our land for a song? Because of this irrational sense of urgency it seemed that we are caving in to what I would call unnecessary settlement with the objectors. Cannot go into further details here because of the confidentiality.
I would have pushed the issue all the way because the outcomes would favour us. First outcome, High Court grants the sale, losers pay full legal fees for both parties. Second outcome, developer withdraws - we get to keep the 60K. How to lose like that?
Unless there is something else I / We do not know.
Things may not be as simple and clear cut as it seems. If it is, we would not have to engaged SCs to argue the case and to provide adice.
I doubt we will get to 'enjoy' the $60k. In the end when we total up the cost, we probably will have to fork out more money for legal fees, replenishment of the sinking fund and to provide for additional maintenance work which was deferred due to the en-bloc.
In a worst case scenario, the buyer may refuse to extend the sales agreement deadline (I may be wrong but I don't think the buyer will gladly hand over the deposit without making a case against the forfeiture - e.g. undue delay, frivolous court filings etc). In this outcome we will get zero and end up with having to pay the lawyers.
Everyone involved, minority and majority owners, should seek to close this out as soon as possible.
Post a Comment