Advertisement
Singapore markets closed
  • Straits Times Index

    3,176.51
    -11.15 (-0.35%)
     
  • Nikkei

    37,068.35
    -1,011.35 (-2.66%)
     
  • Hang Seng

    16,224.14
    -161.73 (-0.99%)
     
  • FTSE 100

    7,895.85
    +18.80 (+0.24%)
     
  • Bitcoin USD

    63,904.73
    +1,637.25 (+2.63%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    1,371.97
    +59.34 (+4.52%)
     
  • S&P 500

    4,967.23
    -43.89 (-0.88%)
     
  • Dow

    37,986.40
    +211.02 (+0.56%)
     
  • Nasdaq

    15,282.01
    -319.49 (-2.05%)
     
  • Gold

    2,406.70
    +8.70 (+0.36%)
     
  • Crude Oil

    83.24
    +0.51 (+0.62%)
     
  • 10-Yr Bond

    4.6150
    -0.0320 (-0.69%)
     
  • FTSE Bursa Malaysia

    1,547.57
    +2.81 (+0.18%)
     
  • Jakarta Composite Index

    7,087.32
    -79.50 (-1.11%)
     
  • PSE Index

    6,443.00
    -80.19 (-1.23%)
     

Two owners appeal ruling on Gilstead Court sale

Two homeowners at Gilstead Court in Newton have appealed a decision by the High Court which gave the green light for the en bloc sale of the condominium, according to media reports.

Represented by Stamford Law Corporation director Adrian Tan, the minority owners are asking the Court of Appeal to review a part of last months decision by High Court Judge Quentin Loh supporting the $150.2 million sale.

Notably, five owners who objected to the deal were imposed with financial penalties under the sales agreement.

One of the penalties required them to pay twice the contributions given by consenting owners towards a common fund that was set up to cover the costs related to the en bloc sale.

ADVERTISEMENT

They were also made to pay an additional $135,000 for the Strata Titles Board proceedings.

The case was brought up to the High Court following failed mediation efforts with the Strata Titles Board.

In his decision, Justice Loh acknowledged the basic rights of dissenting owners to object to the collective sale, adding that they were not bound by the sales agreements since they were not signatories to it.

This cannot be right. Otherwise, a majority can embark on an ill-advised collective sale and yet call upon to detractors to contribute to the costs thereof, he said.

While it may have been easier to scrap the sale, he ruled that it would not be in the interest of the majority to do so, considering the current market state.

He noted that the decision to let the sale proceed, albeit more tedious than refusing it, was the fair one.

Romesh Navaratnarajah, Singapore Editor at PropertyGuru, edited this story. To contact him about this or other stories email romesh@propertyguru.com.sg

More from PropertyGuru:
Govt may review cooling measures this year, say reports
Keppel Land privatisation bid deadline extended
North Dakota: More come forward
Botanique at Bartley Draws Unusually Strong Crowd At Its First Public Viewing