"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.


Spottiswood Park Road
84 units
UOL buys Oakswood Hts for 132 Million
6 Aug 2007

This condominium was sold en bloc in June 2007 and the Strata Titles Board approved the sale in May 2008. The minority owners (exactly how many I do not know) took issue with having to pay the costs and expenses of the sale and the matter went to the High Court. The judgement, issued 13 Jan 2009, can be found below, free to view for 3 months. The minority owners were the defendants in the case and lost.

3 "The defendants, as minority owners in the collective sale of the condominium, argued through counsel that the order did not specify that the minority was bound to pay such costs; secondly, that the quantum was not determined and thus no costs was payable; and thirdly, this application was really an appeal against the Strata Title Board’s order......... "
The Honorable Choo Han Teck wrote:
"4 In the nature of such contracts, the actual amount of the costs in question would not normally be determined at the time the agreement was made because much work remained to be done. All that was required under the contract was to make provision for the principle and mode of payment of such items so that the only consequential litigation that could have arisen would be the issue of the reasonableness of the quantum eventually determined. Hence, the defendants could challenge the amount payable but not the obligation of payment; that, in my view, was amply and clearly provided in the agreements in question."

No comments:

Post a Comment