"I am a BLOGGER NOT an expert. This is a BLOG not a 'go-to' website for official information. I represent no one's view save my own. I have neither legal nor financial training, nor do I have anything to do with the real estate industry. My understanding of the Collective Sale Process is from a layman's position only. My calculations, computations and tables are homespun and may contain errors. Please note that nothing in this blog constitutes any legal or financial advice to anyone reading it. You should refer to your lawyer, CSC or financial adviser for expert advice before making any decision. This disclaimer is applicable to every post and comment on the blog. Read at your own risk."
Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
There is one thing worse than an Enbloc ----- and that is an Enbloc done badly. Since the majority have the necessary mandate to sell, then they owe it to all SPs to make a success of it. Minority SPs can only watch and wait, if they sell then lets pray it's at a price we can move on with, if they don't sell, then we are happy to stay for a few more years.


8 Gillman Heights majority being sued by developer Straits Times article:-
CapitaLand, HPL sue 8 owners of Gillman Heights
Straits Times- 21 Feb 2008
CapitaLand sues 4 Gillman heights Condo owners for breach of contract
ChannelNesAsia - 20 feb 2008
The Gillman Heights majority are treading on dangerous ground . It is similar to what 12 Phoenix Court majority tried to do last year (06 Nov 2007). The judge came down very hard on them. This was what he said: .

In attempting to set aside the CSA and the Supplemental Agreement, the plaintiffs had also breached the covenants and undertakings in cl 7 of the CSA. The relevant sub-clause states:Every Owner agrees as follows:(p) not to do anything whether by an act or omission that may prevent or otherwise be detrimental to the Collective Sale or the fulfillment of any of the purpose under this [CSA] or the [SPA].

It was because of the frivolity of the plaintiffs’ claim that I ordered indemnity costs against them in favour of all nine defendants.
So, this will be an interesting case to follow. Of course it all depends on the specifics and sub clauses of their CSA. Their position seems ambiguous on the outside and they are brave to seek clarification from the Court. Brave or very foolish - depending on the quality of legal advice they have received.
Even though they may be privately fuming, Tampines Court majority owners have not made a public attempt at scuttling or speaking out against the sale - they are abiding by the terms and conditions of the S&P agreement. No flyer against the sale has been circulated by them, and no one can accuse them of trying to back out of the sale. They have been told in no uncertain terms that they will be sued if they attempted do so.
It is just the minority owners who have a LEGAL leeway to publically oppose through the STB and higher, and I wish people would stop telling us to honour a sale we did not commit to! We don't have to, we are not suable on that account.

No comments:

Post a Comment