One of them demands $2m, but court awards him $74k
A palatial bungalow sits at 20A Meng Suan Road, in stark contrast to Nos. 20 to 28 - old one-storey terrace houses, most of them with zinc roofs.
Over the past 10 years, families and workers have moved in and out of the nine terrace houses, which sit on land owned by Mr Ong Beng Chong, who lives in the bungalow.
In recent years, Mr Ong has been trying to get the occupants out so that he could redevelop the land.
The job looks simple enough, given that he is the landlord and calls the shots.
Except that the 21,066 sq ft piece of land in Mandai has a history that dates back to the 1950s, when people could own the land, and let others build houses on it in return for 'ground rent'.
In this case, that amounted to between $7 and $20 a month.
As of January 2008, the plot had an indicative price of around $250 to $260 per sq ft. Inclusive of the development charge, this would put its worth at about $5 million.
Mr Ong sent quit notices to tenants, with offers of compensation.
But he found several unwilling to budge.
Then the takeover battle started.
In March last year, he sued to evict the home owners of Nos. 21 and 23 after they refused his $40,000 compensation. He failed.
Justice Lai Siu Chiu ruled that Mr Ong's father had, in 1959, sold the two houses to Mr Yeo Ang Moo and Ms Victoria Jayaram's father, at a price for which they could have bought houses outright in other parts of Singapore.
Mr Ong's offer of $40,000 compensation then was 'derisory' and not a reasonable sum compared to the $5 million he stood to gain by auctioning off the land on which the row of houses stood.
Although Mr Ong lost the suit then, he appealed further and the case was subsequently settled through mediation.
He acquired the two units and the land they sat on.
He then moved on to acquire one more unit, settling the matter with the unit owner out of court.
Retiree Goh Kim Thong of No. 24, however, held out. He refused $225,000 and wanted between $1.8 million and $2 million instead. Mr Ong applied to evict him.
Mr Goh had bought the house for $10,000 in 1983 from the previous owner and lived there, paying a $7 monthly ground rent.
Based on the original 1959 agreement, Mr Goh argued in court he was entitled 'to squat on the land at $7 per month until the 999-year lease ran out in 2883', according to court documents.
Twice, the High Court warned Mr Goh that he might not end up getting the amount he wanted.
Twice, Mr Goh insisted on pressing his case, never mind that independent valuers had placed the value of the 51-year-old buildings at between $67,000 and $74,000 - far lower than what he had been offered.
Mr Goh, who represented himself, had taken what Justice Chan Seng Onn described as 'a gamble'.
He lost.
Justice Chan said the law to repossess such land is clear. The original land owner could retake the land as long as the building owner was reasonably compensated.
He awarded him $74,000 for the house based on its present condition and ordered him to hand over the premises within four months.
Mr Goh, who does not live at No. 24, signalled that he would be fighting on with an appeal.
The house is now occupied by six workers from Malaysia who are renting the house for $180 each. Mr Pang Kah Peng, 48, a tiling worker who has been living there for six years, said: 'We've heard before that we are supposed to move out, but we still don't know when. No one has told us anything.'
It is now four units down for Mr Ong. Two others are occupied by Mr Ong's family and relatives.
That leaves just Nos. 22, 26 and 28.
No. 28 is owned by the Lim Clan Association. Member Lim Teck Huat, 78, a retiree, said the clan had been offered $225,000 for it, but may want to ask for more.
'We have been here for over 20 years and don't have an alternative location yet. The house is so big, surely we should be given more,' he said.
The caretaker of the clan's premises, Mr Soh Boon Ang, 71, has a different problem: 'I've been living here alone for 10 years. I'll have nowhere to go if we have to move out and I have to get an HDB flat.'
Source: Sunday Times, 11 Jul 2010
Showing posts with label Legal issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal issues. Show all posts
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Ground rent does not mean right to stay on
If there is no evidence that a 'squatter' paying ground rent is entitled to stay on the land permanently, then he needs only to be compensated reasonably for his house, Justice Chan Seng Onn had said.
He added that the law to repossess such land is clear.
The case has a precedent. In 1973, a landowner successfully evicted someone who bought an attap house on his land and paid $3 ground rent per month.
The judge had concluded that the landowner should be allowed to recover possession of the land, provided he made reasonable compensation to the defendant.
Lawyers said the latest case was a throwback to more than 50 years ago when it was a practice for some landowners to allow others to build houses on their land and reside in these houses, provided they continued to pay rent for the land as ground tenants.
Mr Patrick Tan, a lawyer who handles property cases, said it is very rare to find people paying ground rent in Singapore now.
'Most of the time now, a landowner will own both the structure on the land and the land. Developers, for example, will buy both the property and land when a place goes en bloc,' he said.
He added that the case is 'archaic and complicated' and that, in the past, the only way for a tenant to lay claim to the land was to prove he had an 'interest', that is, had developed roots and ownership there over a very long period.
Another property lawyer, who declined to be named, said the practice of ground rent dates back to the time of slums when it would have cost landowners nothing to allow a tenant to beautify and improve their land by squatting on it and building a house.
Source: Sunday Times, 11 Jul 2010
He added that the law to repossess such land is clear.
The case has a precedent. In 1973, a landowner successfully evicted someone who bought an attap house on his land and paid $3 ground rent per month.
The judge had concluded that the landowner should be allowed to recover possession of the land, provided he made reasonable compensation to the defendant.
Lawyers said the latest case was a throwback to more than 50 years ago when it was a practice for some landowners to allow others to build houses on their land and reside in these houses, provided they continued to pay rent for the land as ground tenants.
Mr Patrick Tan, a lawyer who handles property cases, said it is very rare to find people paying ground rent in Singapore now.
'Most of the time now, a landowner will own both the structure on the land and the land. Developers, for example, will buy both the property and land when a place goes en bloc,' he said.
He added that the case is 'archaic and complicated' and that, in the past, the only way for a tenant to lay claim to the land was to prove he had an 'interest', that is, had developed roots and ownership there over a very long period.
Another property lawyer, who declined to be named, said the practice of ground rent dates back to the time of slums when it would have cost landowners nothing to allow a tenant to beautify and improve their land by squatting on it and building a house.
Source: Sunday Times, 11 Jul 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Couple sue son for condo title deeds
They say flats, in son's name, were for investment but son claims they were gifts to him
AN AGED couple from Taiwan have sued their son in the Singapore High Court for the return of the title deeds of two condominium apartments worth about $1.7 million.
In their lawsuit, Mr Yang Min-hao, 76, and Madam Yang Yuan Hsiang-ying, 71, said they funded the $344,500 downpayment for the flats but used their son's name as they were worried about not being able to get a bank loan.
The couple, who live in Taipei, say that their son was merely holding the properties and rental incomes from the flats in trust for them.
Their son, Mr Yang Chuang-yang, 49, who has lived in Singapore for more than 10 years, does not dispute he did not take part in the property purchases. But he claims that his parents gave the flats to him - an assertion the couple, who have five other children, deny.
The three-day hearing, which started yesterday, revolves around apartments in Parc Oasis in Jurong, bought in 1992, and Central Green in Tiong Bahru, bought in 1993.
The couple arranged for their daughter, Ms Yang Sheng Cheng, who was then living in Singapore, to buy the properties, telling her to rent out the units and use the income to service the housing loan instalments, property taxes and maintenance fees.
To secure the housing loan, the couple decided to put the properties in Chuang-yang's name. He was still in Taiwan at the time.
The couple transferred $160,000 for the Parc Oasis apartment and $184,500 for the Central Green apartment to Sheng Cheng as downpayment.
The rest was funded by housing loans obtained by Sheng Cheng here, and the couple later transferred money to her to maintain the apartments, which were rented out. The couple said they had explicitly told their son that the flats were intended for investment purposes and to serve as a source of income during their retirement.
In 1997, Chuang-yang moved to Singapore and, two years later, took over his sister's task of collecting rent. In October 2007, he signed a letter promising that in the event both properties were sold, he would give all the proceeds to his mother.
But when they asked him for the title deeds last year, he refused to hand them over unless they paid him $250,000.
In his defence, Chuang-yang said he was initially not aware that his parents had bought the apartments in his name and found out about it only in 2000. He claims the money did not come from his parents but from the boyfriend of another sister.
Chuang-yang denies that he was holding the properties or rental income in trust for his parents, saying instead that the flats were meant for him as gifts.
Source: Straits Times, 25 May 2010
AN AGED couple from Taiwan have sued their son in the Singapore High Court for the return of the title deeds of two condominium apartments worth about $1.7 million.
In their lawsuit, Mr Yang Min-hao, 76, and Madam Yang Yuan Hsiang-ying, 71, said they funded the $344,500 downpayment for the flats but used their son's name as they were worried about not being able to get a bank loan.
The couple, who live in Taipei, say that their son was merely holding the properties and rental incomes from the flats in trust for them.
Their son, Mr Yang Chuang-yang, 49, who has lived in Singapore for more than 10 years, does not dispute he did not take part in the property purchases. But he claims that his parents gave the flats to him - an assertion the couple, who have five other children, deny.
The three-day hearing, which started yesterday, revolves around apartments in Parc Oasis in Jurong, bought in 1992, and Central Green in Tiong Bahru, bought in 1993.
The couple arranged for their daughter, Ms Yang Sheng Cheng, who was then living in Singapore, to buy the properties, telling her to rent out the units and use the income to service the housing loan instalments, property taxes and maintenance fees.
To secure the housing loan, the couple decided to put the properties in Chuang-yang's name. He was still in Taiwan at the time.
The couple transferred $160,000 for the Parc Oasis apartment and $184,500 for the Central Green apartment to Sheng Cheng as downpayment.
The rest was funded by housing loans obtained by Sheng Cheng here, and the couple later transferred money to her to maintain the apartments, which were rented out. The couple said they had explicitly told their son that the flats were intended for investment purposes and to serve as a source of income during their retirement.
In 1997, Chuang-yang moved to Singapore and, two years later, took over his sister's task of collecting rent. In October 2007, he signed a letter promising that in the event both properties were sold, he would give all the proceeds to his mother.
But when they asked him for the title deeds last year, he refused to hand them over unless they paid him $250,000.
In his defence, Chuang-yang said he was initially not aware that his parents had bought the apartments in his name and found out about it only in 2000. He claims the money did not come from his parents but from the boyfriend of another sister.
Chuang-yang denies that he was holding the properties or rental income in trust for his parents, saying instead that the flats were meant for him as gifts.
Source: Straits Times, 25 May 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Rental cheat gets 16 months’ jail
A man was sentenced to 16 months’ jail in a district court on Monday for cheating four China nationals of S$10,700 in rental fees.
Ivan Tey, who is 35, owns a four-room flat in Jurong West.
Although he had rented the flat to other tenants, he approached different housing agents in October and November last year to look for prospective tenants to rent the flat to.
He found four different tenants and collected rental deposits from them.
The tenants later realised Tey had signed tenancy agreements with other tenants and found other tenants living in the flat.
They then separately made police reports.
Tey’s lawyer, Mr Joseph Chen, told the court that Tey committed the offences as he was in financial difficulty and had to support two young children.
He said Tey’s father is receiving treatment for cancer and urged the court to impose a shorter jail sentence.
Source: Channel News Asia, 24 May 2010
Ivan Tey, who is 35, owns a four-room flat in Jurong West.
Although he had rented the flat to other tenants, he approached different housing agents in October and November last year to look for prospective tenants to rent the flat to.
He found four different tenants and collected rental deposits from them.
The tenants later realised Tey had signed tenancy agreements with other tenants and found other tenants living in the flat.
They then separately made police reports.
Tey’s lawyer, Mr Joseph Chen, told the court that Tey committed the offences as he was in financial difficulty and had to support two young children.
He said Tey’s father is receiving treatment for cancer and urged the court to impose a shorter jail sentence.
Source: Channel News Asia, 24 May 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Condo owners want action from developer
A tiny piece of a condominium development encroaching onto State land is making some residents see red, and they now want the developer to tear down and rebuild the affected wall, or buy over the 15 sq m plot of land from the Government.
The infringement occurred when the development was being built in the 1990s. Great Victoria Development (GVD), through its interim management council, had negotiated with the authorities for a temporary occupation licence (TOL) for the encroaching portion of land.
But the residents of Country Grandeur in Lorong Puntong allegedly only discovered there was a TOL during the annual general meeting last December, when someone questioned the $120 payment to the authorities for the licence – an entry which cropped up in the accounts of the estate’s management corporation.
The plot in question is a strip of land, about the size of a small room, by the wall in the swimming pool area.
Residents said they were unhappy that they were not informed that GVD had negotiated with the authorities for a TOL.
The developer had run the interim management council for two terms until 1999, when it turned the management of the new estate over to residents.
Some in the 66-unit estate, which is located off Sin Ming Avenue, felt that the developer should have solved the problem instead of passing it on to them.
In a letter to GVD this January, the management council, writing on behalf of residents, gave the developer two alternatives.
One, that it tear down the wall and rebuild it and any facilities affected by the demolition work. Or, two, that it buy over the strip of land with all costs to be borne by GVD.
In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by MediaCorp, residents also demand the developer return all the money tapped from the management corporation’s funds to pay the TOL fee over the years.
Some residents see it as a matter of principle, while others want the issue settled so that they can have peace of mind.
“The amount ($120) is not important but the ramifications are,” said one.
“What would happen if, one day, the Government decides to develop the State land or stop the TOL?”
When contacted, Mr David Hwang, who runs GVD with his father Hwang Sin Jen, declined comment.
GVD owns several units in Country Grandeur and the younger Mr Hwang, who previously served on the management council, is living there with his family.
MediaCorp understands the management council is seeking legal advice.
Source: Today, 12 May 2010
The infringement occurred when the development was being built in the 1990s. Great Victoria Development (GVD), through its interim management council, had negotiated with the authorities for a temporary occupation licence (TOL) for the encroaching portion of land.
But the residents of Country Grandeur in Lorong Puntong allegedly only discovered there was a TOL during the annual general meeting last December, when someone questioned the $120 payment to the authorities for the licence – an entry which cropped up in the accounts of the estate’s management corporation.
The plot in question is a strip of land, about the size of a small room, by the wall in the swimming pool area.
Residents said they were unhappy that they were not informed that GVD had negotiated with the authorities for a TOL.
The developer had run the interim management council for two terms until 1999, when it turned the management of the new estate over to residents.
Some in the 66-unit estate, which is located off Sin Ming Avenue, felt that the developer should have solved the problem instead of passing it on to them.
In a letter to GVD this January, the management council, writing on behalf of residents, gave the developer two alternatives.
One, that it tear down the wall and rebuild it and any facilities affected by the demolition work. Or, two, that it buy over the strip of land with all costs to be borne by GVD.
In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by MediaCorp, residents also demand the developer return all the money tapped from the management corporation’s funds to pay the TOL fee over the years.
Some residents see it as a matter of principle, while others want the issue settled so that they can have peace of mind.
“The amount ($120) is not important but the ramifications are,” said one.
“What would happen if, one day, the Government decides to develop the State land or stop the TOL?”
When contacted, Mr David Hwang, who runs GVD with his father Hwang Sin Jen, declined comment.
GVD owns several units in Country Grandeur and the younger Mr Hwang, who previously served on the management council, is living there with his family.
MediaCorp understands the management council is seeking legal advice.
Source: Today, 12 May 2010
Beware this fake-landlord scam
BE CAREFUL if you are looking to rent a home here, or you could fall prey to a rental scam.
This is how it works: A conman, using a fake name, poses as a landlord with rooms for rent at low prices.
He gives fake addresses of apartments in areas like Orchard and Chinatown.
He refuses to arrange for a viewing of the apartments, claiming that he is in Britain on internship and will be back here only by the end of next month.
He asks potential tenants to e-mail him a scan of their passport, and sign a contract e-mailed to them.
He asks them to wire a month’s rent and a security deposit to a Western Union account, and says he will post the keys to them. To reassure them, he sends images of the apartments and a scan of what he claims to be his passport.
A check with a thread on rental scams in Singapore on online forum scamwarners.com showed that at least 14 people have received such messages.
The scammer uses different pseudonyms, like Richard Willem Tibor, Jane Louise Millar and Tan Nee, and asks for sums of between $1,100 and $2,500.
Figures from the police show that, on average, one person falls victim to such rental scams every day. Last year, police received 324 reports of rental scams, down from 355 reports in 2008.
Mr Manuel Nacionales, 44, a Filipino systems analyst who has been working here for four years, almost became a victim.
He posted a request to rent a room on share-accommodation. sg, a website that links potential house- or flat-mates, in February this year.
Within a day, he got an offer of an apartment at 14 Scotts Road ? the address of shopping mall Far East Plaza.
In an e-mail sent from tantongnee@hotmail.com, the sender said he was a Singaporean named Tan Nee and could be called on +44-701-115-1047.
He asked Mr Nacionales to send a month’s rent of $700 and a security deposit of $400 to a Western Union account.
Mr Nacionales did receive a scan of the passport of a man called Tan Tong Nee, but did not wire any money after his colleagues advised him against it.
When my paper called the number posing as a potential tenant, the man identified himself as Tan Nee Long in a pseudo- British accent.
Pressed for the address of the rental apartment, he said that it was 202 Far East Apartment.
But a check with Far East Plaza’s residence showed that all its unit numbers are in four digits.
He could not arrange for a viewing of the apartment as he is doing a master’s programme in computer programming in London and has no friends in Singapore, he said.
He would send the keys only after the lease contract was signed and payment made.
“You have nothing to worry about, I’ll be sending you the contract and scanned passport of myself,” he said repeatedly.
When my paper asked him about forum postings about him being a scammer, he said: “No, I don’t do such things… People keep saying rubbish on the Internet.
It’s because I’m not gonna lease the room to them, that’s why they say I’m a scammer.”
He said that he was renting out the apartment on behalf of his mother, who owns it.
When told that he was speaking to my paper, he said “no problem”, but then hung up.
Scamwarners.com’s adviser, Mr David Jenson, 40, said one should never pay or send personal details to a stranger online.
Insist on seeing the title deeds, said Consumers Association of Singapore executive director Seah Seng Choon.
Check out the rightful owners of a property on the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore’s website, and look for properties via reputable websites like www.iproperty.com and www.propertyguru.com, said Mr Nelson Tan, a council member of the Institute of Estate Agents.
A police spokesman said tenants should request all parties to be present when signing tenancy documents, and should not pay large sums in cash.
Source: my paper, 12 May 2010
This is how it works: A conman, using a fake name, poses as a landlord with rooms for rent at low prices.
He gives fake addresses of apartments in areas like Orchard and Chinatown.
He refuses to arrange for a viewing of the apartments, claiming that he is in Britain on internship and will be back here only by the end of next month.
He asks potential tenants to e-mail him a scan of their passport, and sign a contract e-mailed to them.
He asks them to wire a month’s rent and a security deposit to a Western Union account, and says he will post the keys to them. To reassure them, he sends images of the apartments and a scan of what he claims to be his passport.
A check with a thread on rental scams in Singapore on online forum scamwarners.com showed that at least 14 people have received such messages.
The scammer uses different pseudonyms, like Richard Willem Tibor, Jane Louise Millar and Tan Nee, and asks for sums of between $1,100 and $2,500.
Figures from the police show that, on average, one person falls victim to such rental scams every day. Last year, police received 324 reports of rental scams, down from 355 reports in 2008.
Mr Manuel Nacionales, 44, a Filipino systems analyst who has been working here for four years, almost became a victim.
He posted a request to rent a room on share-accommodation. sg, a website that links potential house- or flat-mates, in February this year.
Within a day, he got an offer of an apartment at 14 Scotts Road ? the address of shopping mall Far East Plaza.
In an e-mail sent from tantongnee@hotmail.com, the sender said he was a Singaporean named Tan Nee and could be called on +44-701-115-1047.
He asked Mr Nacionales to send a month’s rent of $700 and a security deposit of $400 to a Western Union account.
Mr Nacionales did receive a scan of the passport of a man called Tan Tong Nee, but did not wire any money after his colleagues advised him against it.
When my paper called the number posing as a potential tenant, the man identified himself as Tan Nee Long in a pseudo- British accent.
Pressed for the address of the rental apartment, he said that it was 202 Far East Apartment.
But a check with Far East Plaza’s residence showed that all its unit numbers are in four digits.
He could not arrange for a viewing of the apartment as he is doing a master’s programme in computer programming in London and has no friends in Singapore, he said.
He would send the keys only after the lease contract was signed and payment made.
“You have nothing to worry about, I’ll be sending you the contract and scanned passport of myself,” he said repeatedly.
When my paper asked him about forum postings about him being a scammer, he said: “No, I don’t do such things… People keep saying rubbish on the Internet.
It’s because I’m not gonna lease the room to them, that’s why they say I’m a scammer.”
He said that he was renting out the apartment on behalf of his mother, who owns it.
When told that he was speaking to my paper, he said “no problem”, but then hung up.
Scamwarners.com’s adviser, Mr David Jenson, 40, said one should never pay or send personal details to a stranger online.
Insist on seeing the title deeds, said Consumers Association of Singapore executive director Seah Seng Choon.
Check out the rightful owners of a property on the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore’s website, and look for properties via reputable websites like www.iproperty.com and www.propertyguru.com, said Mr Nelson Tan, a council member of the Institute of Estate Agents.
A police spokesman said tenants should request all parties to be present when signing tenancy documents, and should not pay large sums in cash.
Source: my paper, 12 May 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Ex-bank owner again fails to pay Ngee Ann rent
His firm's furniture, movable property to be auctioned in May: sources
ONCE prominent bank owner Agus Anwar has failed to make the initial payment for rent owed to Ngee Ann Development despite promising to do so by April 30, sources told BT.
BT understands that Mr Agus, who used to own banks in Indonesia, had proposed on April 28 to make a partial payment of the $1.2 million that his investment holding firm, Investoasia, owes Ngee Ann Development. The proposal was made just as the landlord was about to auction Investoasia's property to offset the unpaid rent. Ngee Ann Development then called off the auction.
Sources told BT that an auction to sell Investoasia's furniture and movable property will now be held in late May, and Mr Agus is currently negotiating with Ngee Ann Development on making payments for the outstanding rent.
This is not the first time the investment holding firm has failed on its promise to pay up. According to sources, Mr Agus had made numerous promises to pay the arrears owed, such as proposing an instalment plan, but did not make payment.
Investoasia's repeated failure to pay up prompted Ngee Ann Development to file a suit against it in February this year.
According to court documents, Investoasia owes Ngee Ann Development rent for two offices it occupied on the 24th and 25th storeys of Ngee Ann City's Tower A.
It owes Ngee Ann Development 13 months' rent amounting to about $900,000 for the 24th-floor office. It also has to pay the landlord additional rent after failing to hand over the office despite a notice to do so by Dec 11 last year.
Ngee Ann Development then seized the office - and Investoasia's property in it - through a court order issued on April 1.
Investoasia also owes Ngee Ann Development another $190,000 for office space it rented on the 25th floor between September and November 2008.
The current suit is among the many filed by creditors against Mr Agus and the firms controlled by him and his family.
Last December, he applied for a stay of bankruptcy proceedings, saying that he was looking to raise income from certain sources. His application was turned down - a decision he is appealing against.
Indonesian-born Mr Agus, now in his late 50s, moved here in 2000 to start afresh amid the fallout from the 1997 financial crisis. He became a Singapore citizen in 2004, the year news reports quoted Indonesian officials as saying that he owed the Indonesian government 3.2 trillion rupiah.
The money, equivalent to $633 million at the time, was said to have been used to bail out two of his Indonesia-based banks, which collapsed as a result of the 1997 financial crisis.
The banks, Bank Istimarat and Bank Pelita, are now defunct. According to the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (Ibra), the two banks misused the Indonesian government's emergency loan.
Data from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (Acra) show that Investoasia was set up in 2001 and is controlled by Mr Agus and Marcel Tjia Han Liong, chief executive and executive director of Interra Resources, a petroleum exploration and production company which is listed in Singapore and Australia. The Ngee Ann City office on the 24th floor is still listed as its registered office.
The latest financial data provided by Investoasia to Acra dates back to 2006, where it reported a $24 million loss - after tax from continuing operations - and $4.8 million in revenue.
Companies it has an interest in include Keppel Telecommunications and Transportation (Keppel T&T), in which it had a 6.5 per cent stake, according to Keppel T&T's 2009 annual report.
In January this year, High Court judge Lee Seiu Kin ordered Mr Agus to repay a $10.5 million loan he received in 2008 from Orion Oil, an investment firm.
The loan, secured through a mortgage on assets such as shares in Keppel T&T, was to have been repaid in three months with $500,000 in interest. However, Mr Agus filed a suit in court arguing that the loan was void because Orion Oil did not have a licence to lend money. This claim was rejected by Justice Lee. Mr Agus is appealing against the decision.
Last November, Mr Agus's two sons were ordered by the High Court to pay $15 million that their father owes to the local branch of Societe Generale Bank & Trust after they signed documents agreeing to be liable for his debts.
The sons appealed against the summary judgement and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal at a hearing last month. As a result, the case will proceed to be heard in a full trial at a later date, where the facts of the case will be examined.
Source: Business Times, 8 May 2010
ONCE prominent bank owner Agus Anwar has failed to make the initial payment for rent owed to Ngee Ann Development despite promising to do so by April 30, sources told BT.
BT understands that Mr Agus, who used to own banks in Indonesia, had proposed on April 28 to make a partial payment of the $1.2 million that his investment holding firm, Investoasia, owes Ngee Ann Development. The proposal was made just as the landlord was about to auction Investoasia's property to offset the unpaid rent. Ngee Ann Development then called off the auction.
Sources told BT that an auction to sell Investoasia's furniture and movable property will now be held in late May, and Mr Agus is currently negotiating with Ngee Ann Development on making payments for the outstanding rent.
This is not the first time the investment holding firm has failed on its promise to pay up. According to sources, Mr Agus had made numerous promises to pay the arrears owed, such as proposing an instalment plan, but did not make payment.
Investoasia's repeated failure to pay up prompted Ngee Ann Development to file a suit against it in February this year.
According to court documents, Investoasia owes Ngee Ann Development rent for two offices it occupied on the 24th and 25th storeys of Ngee Ann City's Tower A.
It owes Ngee Ann Development 13 months' rent amounting to about $900,000 for the 24th-floor office. It also has to pay the landlord additional rent after failing to hand over the office despite a notice to do so by Dec 11 last year.
Ngee Ann Development then seized the office - and Investoasia's property in it - through a court order issued on April 1.
Investoasia also owes Ngee Ann Development another $190,000 for office space it rented on the 25th floor between September and November 2008.
The current suit is among the many filed by creditors against Mr Agus and the firms controlled by him and his family.
Last December, he applied for a stay of bankruptcy proceedings, saying that he was looking to raise income from certain sources. His application was turned down - a decision he is appealing against.
Indonesian-born Mr Agus, now in his late 50s, moved here in 2000 to start afresh amid the fallout from the 1997 financial crisis. He became a Singapore citizen in 2004, the year news reports quoted Indonesian officials as saying that he owed the Indonesian government 3.2 trillion rupiah.
The money, equivalent to $633 million at the time, was said to have been used to bail out two of his Indonesia-based banks, which collapsed as a result of the 1997 financial crisis.
The banks, Bank Istimarat and Bank Pelita, are now defunct. According to the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (Ibra), the two banks misused the Indonesian government's emergency loan.
Data from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (Acra) show that Investoasia was set up in 2001 and is controlled by Mr Agus and Marcel Tjia Han Liong, chief executive and executive director of Interra Resources, a petroleum exploration and production company which is listed in Singapore and Australia. The Ngee Ann City office on the 24th floor is still listed as its registered office.
The latest financial data provided by Investoasia to Acra dates back to 2006, where it reported a $24 million loss - after tax from continuing operations - and $4.8 million in revenue.
Companies it has an interest in include Keppel Telecommunications and Transportation (Keppel T&T), in which it had a 6.5 per cent stake, according to Keppel T&T's 2009 annual report.
In January this year, High Court judge Lee Seiu Kin ordered Mr Agus to repay a $10.5 million loan he received in 2008 from Orion Oil, an investment firm.
The loan, secured through a mortgage on assets such as shares in Keppel T&T, was to have been repaid in three months with $500,000 in interest. However, Mr Agus filed a suit in court arguing that the loan was void because Orion Oil did not have a licence to lend money. This claim was rejected by Justice Lee. Mr Agus is appealing against the decision.
Last November, Mr Agus's two sons were ordered by the High Court to pay $15 million that their father owes to the local branch of Societe Generale Bank & Trust after they signed documents agreeing to be liable for his debts.
The sons appealed against the summary judgement and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal at a hearing last month. As a result, the case will proceed to be heard in a full trial at a later date, where the facts of the case will be examined.
Source: Business Times, 8 May 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Property investor Calisa Cheong in court for rental scam
Self-styled property investor Calisa Cheong Mei Ing was back in court on Tuesday after having her mitigation plea rejected last year.
In remand since July last year, Cheong faces 74 counts of cheating tenants of rent money and obtaining credit as an undischarged bankrupt.
When she appeared in the subordinate courts last October, the 40-year-old told the court she had wanted to plead guilty so as to fast track her sentence. She wanted to resume work as soon as possible and support her four children.
The single mother, however, decided to fight her case after her mitigation plea was rejected due to her insistence on maintaining innocence and a lawyer was subsequently assigned to her by the Law Society.
But in court on Tuesday, Cheong told District Judge Toh Yung Cheong that she would be representing herself as she had discharged the Law Society’s lawyer.
One of the victims, Mr Liu Guo, a Chinese national, told the court that Cheong had told him she was the owner of a flat at Geylang Bahru.
She told him that she was then pregnant and needed money, so Mr Liu withdrew S$3,000 from his bank account and gave it to her. He also transferred another S$4,000 from his bank account to hers.
However, when Mr Liu and his wife went to view the flat, he found out that the unit belonged to an Indian family. He telephoned Cheong but she told him he should inform her first if he wanted to view the flat again.
Refuting Mr Liu’s testimony, Cheong said that she had wanted to strike a rental deal with the flat owners, but Mr Liu jumped the gun and alarmed the owners.
The trial continues on Wednesday.
Source: Channel News Asia, 4 May 2010
In remand since July last year, Cheong faces 74 counts of cheating tenants of rent money and obtaining credit as an undischarged bankrupt.
When she appeared in the subordinate courts last October, the 40-year-old told the court she had wanted to plead guilty so as to fast track her sentence. She wanted to resume work as soon as possible and support her four children.
The single mother, however, decided to fight her case after her mitigation plea was rejected due to her insistence on maintaining innocence and a lawyer was subsequently assigned to her by the Law Society.
But in court on Tuesday, Cheong told District Judge Toh Yung Cheong that she would be representing herself as she had discharged the Law Society’s lawyer.
One of the victims, Mr Liu Guo, a Chinese national, told the court that Cheong had told him she was the owner of a flat at Geylang Bahru.
She told him that she was then pregnant and needed money, so Mr Liu withdrew S$3,000 from his bank account and gave it to her. He also transferred another S$4,000 from his bank account to hers.
However, when Mr Liu and his wife went to view the flat, he found out that the unit belonged to an Indian family. He telephoned Cheong but she told him he should inform her first if he wanted to view the flat again.
Refuting Mr Liu’s testimony, Cheong said that she had wanted to strike a rental deal with the flat owners, but Mr Liu jumped the gun and alarmed the owners.
The trial continues on Wednesday.
Source: Channel News Asia, 4 May 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Banker's 'fresh start' runs onto rocky road
It's been a long journey for tycoon whose firm is asked to pay rental arrears
Agus Anwar may have once owned banks in Indonesia, but now he is owing rent.
The Singapore investment holding firm controlled by the once prominent banker has proposed a plan at the eleventh hour to pay $1.2 million in arrears it owes Ngee Ann Development - just as the landlord was about to auction the firm's property to offset the unpaid rent.
Sources told BT that the public auction, which was supposed to be held on Wednesday, was called off after Investoasia (formerly known as Kapital Asia) proposed to make an initial payment of part of the arrears it owes by the end of the week.
No date has been set for another auction - if it is on the cards - to sell Investoasia's furniture and moveable property.
According to court documents, Investoasia owes Ngee Ann Development rent for two offices it occupied on the 24th and 25th storeys of Ngee Ann City's Tower A.
Investoasia owes Ngee Ann Development 13 months rent amounting to about $900,000 for the 24th floor office.
It also has to pay the landlord additional rent after it failed to hand over the office despite a notice to do so by Dec 11 last year.
Ngee Ann Development seized the office - and Investoasia's property in it - through a court order issued on April 1.
Investoasia also owes Ngee Ann Development another $190,000 for office space it rented on the 25th floor between September and November 2008.
The investment holding firm's failure to pay the arrears prompted Ngee Ann Development to file a suit against it in February through its lawyer Edward Tiong of Allen & Gledhill.
Early this month, an order issued by the High Court allowed Ngee Ann Development to auction property owned by Investoasia located at its former 24th floor office - unless it pays up.
Mr Agus and his lawyers have declined to comment.
The suit is one of many filed by creditors against Mr Agus and firms controlled by him and his family.
Last December, he applied for a stay of bankruptcy proceedings, saying he was looking to raise income from certain sources. His application was turned down - a decision he is appealing against.
Indonesian-born Mr Agus, now in his late 50s, moved here in 2000 to start afresh amid the fallout from the 1997 financial crisis, which hit Indonesia hard.
He became a Singapore citizen in 2004 - the year news reports quoted Indonesian officials as saying that he owed the Indonesian government 3.2 trillion rupiah.
The money, equivalent to $633 million at the time, was said to have been used to bail out two of his Indonesian-based banks which collapsed as a result of the 1997 crisis.
The banks, Bank Istimarat and Bank Pelita, are now defunct. According to the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA), Bank Istimarat and Bank Pelita misused the Indonesian government's emergency loan.
When BT visited Investoasia's former office on the 24th floor of Ngee Ann City Tower A last week, the premises were locked. A notice instructed that mail be delivered next door - which houses listed telecommunications firm Teledata. Some Investoasia employees were in the Teledata office but declined to speak.
According to data from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), Investoasia was set up in 2001 and is controlled by Mr Agus and Marcel Tjia Han Liong, chief executive and executive director of Interra Resources, a petroleum exploration and production company which is listed in Singapore and Australia.
The latest financial data provided by Investoasia to ACRA dates back to 2006, where it reported a $24 million loss - after tax from continuing operations - and $4.8 million in revenue.
Companies it has an interest in include Keppel Telecommunications and Transportation (Keppel T&T), in which it had a 6.5 per cent stake, according to Keppel T&T's 2009 annual report.
In January this year, High Court judge Lee Seiu Kin ordered Mr Agus to repay a $10.5 million loan he received in 2008 from investment company Orion Oil.
The loan was secured by a mortgage on shares in Keppel T&T, among various things, and was to have been repaid in three months with $500,000 in interest. However, Mr Agus argued in court that the loan was void since Orion Oil did not have a licence to lend money. This claim was rejected by Justice Lee.
Mr Agus is appealing against the decision.
Last November, Mr Agus's two sons were ordered by the High Court to pay $15 million their father owes to the local branch of Societe Generale Bank & Trust after they signed documents agreeing to be liable for his debts.
When Mr Agus defaulted on payments in October 2008, the bank terminated the credit services it offered him. It held off taking legal action on condition that his sons Patrick Adrian Anwar and Andrew Francis Anwar take out mortgages on two apartments in Devonshire Road, which he bought in their names.
The sons signed an agreement to pay the bank all the money their father owed.
When Mr Agus again failed to make payments, the bank turned to the sons - who also failed to pay. This led the bank to sue Mr Agus, his sons and two investment holding companies, each owned by one brother.
Last July, the sum due to the bank was about $17 million.
Some $2.3 million has been recovered from the sale of shares, payment of dividends and sale proceeds from the two mortgages.
Source: Business Times, 30 Apr 2010
Agus Anwar may have once owned banks in Indonesia, but now he is owing rent.
The Singapore investment holding firm controlled by the once prominent banker has proposed a plan at the eleventh hour to pay $1.2 million in arrears it owes Ngee Ann Development - just as the landlord was about to auction the firm's property to offset the unpaid rent.
Sources told BT that the public auction, which was supposed to be held on Wednesday, was called off after Investoasia (formerly known as Kapital Asia) proposed to make an initial payment of part of the arrears it owes by the end of the week.
No date has been set for another auction - if it is on the cards - to sell Investoasia's furniture and moveable property.
According to court documents, Investoasia owes Ngee Ann Development rent for two offices it occupied on the 24th and 25th storeys of Ngee Ann City's Tower A.
Investoasia owes Ngee Ann Development 13 months rent amounting to about $900,000 for the 24th floor office.
It also has to pay the landlord additional rent after it failed to hand over the office despite a notice to do so by Dec 11 last year.
Ngee Ann Development seized the office - and Investoasia's property in it - through a court order issued on April 1.
Investoasia also owes Ngee Ann Development another $190,000 for office space it rented on the 25th floor between September and November 2008.
The investment holding firm's failure to pay the arrears prompted Ngee Ann Development to file a suit against it in February through its lawyer Edward Tiong of Allen & Gledhill.
Early this month, an order issued by the High Court allowed Ngee Ann Development to auction property owned by Investoasia located at its former 24th floor office - unless it pays up.
Mr Agus and his lawyers have declined to comment.
The suit is one of many filed by creditors against Mr Agus and firms controlled by him and his family.
Last December, he applied for a stay of bankruptcy proceedings, saying he was looking to raise income from certain sources. His application was turned down - a decision he is appealing against.
Indonesian-born Mr Agus, now in his late 50s, moved here in 2000 to start afresh amid the fallout from the 1997 financial crisis, which hit Indonesia hard.
He became a Singapore citizen in 2004 - the year news reports quoted Indonesian officials as saying that he owed the Indonesian government 3.2 trillion rupiah.
The money, equivalent to $633 million at the time, was said to have been used to bail out two of his Indonesian-based banks which collapsed as a result of the 1997 crisis.
The banks, Bank Istimarat and Bank Pelita, are now defunct. According to the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA), Bank Istimarat and Bank Pelita misused the Indonesian government's emergency loan.
When BT visited Investoasia's former office on the 24th floor of Ngee Ann City Tower A last week, the premises were locked. A notice instructed that mail be delivered next door - which houses listed telecommunications firm Teledata. Some Investoasia employees were in the Teledata office but declined to speak.
According to data from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), Investoasia was set up in 2001 and is controlled by Mr Agus and Marcel Tjia Han Liong, chief executive and executive director of Interra Resources, a petroleum exploration and production company which is listed in Singapore and Australia.
The latest financial data provided by Investoasia to ACRA dates back to 2006, where it reported a $24 million loss - after tax from continuing operations - and $4.8 million in revenue.
Companies it has an interest in include Keppel Telecommunications and Transportation (Keppel T&T), in which it had a 6.5 per cent stake, according to Keppel T&T's 2009 annual report.
In January this year, High Court judge Lee Seiu Kin ordered Mr Agus to repay a $10.5 million loan he received in 2008 from investment company Orion Oil.
The loan was secured by a mortgage on shares in Keppel T&T, among various things, and was to have been repaid in three months with $500,000 in interest. However, Mr Agus argued in court that the loan was void since Orion Oil did not have a licence to lend money. This claim was rejected by Justice Lee.
Mr Agus is appealing against the decision.
Last November, Mr Agus's two sons were ordered by the High Court to pay $15 million their father owes to the local branch of Societe Generale Bank & Trust after they signed documents agreeing to be liable for his debts.
When Mr Agus defaulted on payments in October 2008, the bank terminated the credit services it offered him. It held off taking legal action on condition that his sons Patrick Adrian Anwar and Andrew Francis Anwar take out mortgages on two apartments in Devonshire Road, which he bought in their names.
The sons signed an agreement to pay the bank all the money their father owed.
When Mr Agus again failed to make payments, the bank turned to the sons - who also failed to pay. This led the bank to sue Mr Agus, his sons and two investment holding companies, each owned by one brother.
Last July, the sum due to the bank was about $17 million.
Some $2.3 million has been recovered from the sale of shares, payment of dividends and sale proceeds from the two mortgages.
Source: Business Times, 30 Apr 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
IndoChine owner claims he was ‘misled’ in shophouse deal
INDOCHINE pub and restaurant chain owner Michael Ma went to the High Court yesterday in a bid to reclaim $386,000 he had paid for the option to buy five conservation shophouses.
He had handed over 5 per cent of the Tanjong Katong Road shophouses’ total worth of $7.7 million thinking he could buy them for commercial use. But he later found out they were partially restricted to residential use.
Mr Ma claimed the seller, Goodman Development, had misrepresented the shophouses as being for commercial use, and wants it to return his money.
But Goodman denies misleading him and said he should have conducted better checks.
Yesterday, Mr Ma, an Australian and permanent resident here, told the High Court he paid the option fee on behalf of renovation and interior design firm Aqua Art, of which he was a director.
As he already owned a residential property, he was not eligible to buy any more meant for residential use. Neither could Aqua Art, as it was foreign-owned.
The trouble began on June 16 three years ago. Mr Ma said his property agent Odelia Tan told him Goodman’s property agent Katherine Poh confirmed that the shophouses were zoned for commercial use.
When he inspected them that day with business associate Andrew Neary and Aqua Art director Camilla Hall, Ms Poh confirmed they were for commercial use, although people were living in them, Mr Ma told the court.
However, when Ms Poh took the stand yesterday, questioned by Mr Ma’s lawyer Kenneth Pereira, she denied telling him that.
Ms Poh said she made it quite clear the two-storey shophouses were meant for commercial use only on the ground floor.
She also claimed that at no point did Mr Ma tell her he was a foreigner, which meant he would be ruled out of buying the shophouses. When asked why she did not check, she replied: ‘He never tells me, I never probe.’
On the day of the site visit, Mr Ma paid a fifth of the 5 per cent option to purchase fee.
Within three weeks, he paid the remainder so that he could exercise the option to buy.
But he later found out the properties were partially zoned as residential, pulled out of the deal, and sought a refund.
Goodman refused, and pointed out that nowhere in the purchase documents was it stated the properties were for commercial use.
Lawyer Felicia Ng also argued in defence statements that Goodman did not know Aqua Art was foreign-owned.
The hearing before Justice Choo Han Teck continues today.
Source: Straits Times, 20 Apr 2010
He had handed over 5 per cent of the Tanjong Katong Road shophouses’ total worth of $7.7 million thinking he could buy them for commercial use. But he later found out they were partially restricted to residential use.
Mr Ma claimed the seller, Goodman Development, had misrepresented the shophouses as being for commercial use, and wants it to return his money.
But Goodman denies misleading him and said he should have conducted better checks.
Yesterday, Mr Ma, an Australian and permanent resident here, told the High Court he paid the option fee on behalf of renovation and interior design firm Aqua Art, of which he was a director.
As he already owned a residential property, he was not eligible to buy any more meant for residential use. Neither could Aqua Art, as it was foreign-owned.
The trouble began on June 16 three years ago. Mr Ma said his property agent Odelia Tan told him Goodman’s property agent Katherine Poh confirmed that the shophouses were zoned for commercial use.
When he inspected them that day with business associate Andrew Neary and Aqua Art director Camilla Hall, Ms Poh confirmed they were for commercial use, although people were living in them, Mr Ma told the court.
However, when Ms Poh took the stand yesterday, questioned by Mr Ma’s lawyer Kenneth Pereira, she denied telling him that.
Ms Poh said she made it quite clear the two-storey shophouses were meant for commercial use only on the ground floor.
She also claimed that at no point did Mr Ma tell her he was a foreigner, which meant he would be ruled out of buying the shophouses. When asked why she did not check, she replied: ‘He never tells me, I never probe.’
On the day of the site visit, Mr Ma paid a fifth of the 5 per cent option to purchase fee.
Within three weeks, he paid the remainder so that he could exercise the option to buy.
But he later found out the properties were partially zoned as residential, pulled out of the deal, and sought a refund.
Goodman refused, and pointed out that nowhere in the purchase documents was it stated the properties were for commercial use.
Lawyer Felicia Ng also argued in defence statements that Goodman did not know Aqua Art was foreign-owned.
The hearing before Justice Choo Han Teck continues today.
Source: Straits Times, 20 Apr 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Lawyers ordered to return commission
A COURT has found that an agreement between Electronic Realty Associates (ERA) and a property owner could result in ‘unjust enrichment’ for the property agency.
District Judge Francis Tseng has thus ordered four lawyers to return to Mr Simon Suppiah Sunmugam the money they had paid out as commission to the agency.
The lawyers had earlier released $28,000 as commission to ERA from the sale of Mr Suppiah’s house.
The 62-year-old private investigator had sued Ms Amarjit Kour, Mr Gregory Tang Wee Thiang, Ms Belinda Ang Choo Poh and Mr Peter Cuthbert Low, of the now-defunct law firm Peter Low Tang & Belinda Ang, for failing in their professional duties in connection with a property sale in 2002.
A fifth lawyer, Mr Andrew John Hanam, was found not to be at fault as he was not involved in the agreement. He had been engaged only to act for Mr Suppiah’s divorce from Madam Nee Shyan Huey in May 1996.
In his judgment last Wednesday, Judge Tseng said the four lawyers’ interpretation of the provisions of the agreement, titled Exclusive Authorisation to Sell, renders the property seller ‘at the complete mercy’ of ERA and could result in a ‘most unfair situation’.
Signed in June 2001 by Madam Nee, 44, an insurance agent, the agreement granted ERA a commission of 2 per cent on the first $1 million of the purchase price and 1 per cent for any amount in excess paid for the matrimonial home in Punggol.
This was payable if the company introduced a buyer or if the property was sold within three months.
After the 90-day period, the agreement would continue from week to week unless terminated by either party.
The proposed selling price was $2.4million, but ERA found a potential buyer who offered only $1.6 million in February the following year.
Mr Suppiah rejected it as too low, and a month later, he found a buyer who was willing to pay $1.75 million.
When the sale was completed, Mr Suppiah expected his share of the sales proceeds to be $240,000, with the rest of the money going to Madam Nee and to a trust fund for the couple’s two daughters.
When he received only $212,000 in July 2002, as $28,000 had been taken out for the agency’s commission, he instructed Mr Hanam to write to the other lawyers to withhold payment, as he had found the buyer himself.
But by then it was too late, as they had already released the money to ERA.
It was argued that since the agreement was not terminated, ERA was entitled to the commission even if the agency did nothing after the three-month period.
However, Judge Tseng said that this would amount to ‘unjust enrichment’ for the agency.
The court also dismissed the defendants’ claims that they were acting only for Madam Nee and did not owe her ex-husband any professional obligation.
The judge noted that their law firm clearly stated it was acting for both parties in its correspondence with the Central Provident Fund Board and the Comptroller of Property Tax.
Mr Suppiah’s lawyer Alain A. Johns also convinced the court that there was ‘a total lack of consideration on the part of ERA’ in the agreement, which he said should be regarded as ‘void and unenforceable’.
The four lawyers, who were also ordered to pay costs, are considering an appeal against the verdict.
Source: Straits Times, 5 Apr 2010
District Judge Francis Tseng has thus ordered four lawyers to return to Mr Simon Suppiah Sunmugam the money they had paid out as commission to the agency.
The lawyers had earlier released $28,000 as commission to ERA from the sale of Mr Suppiah’s house.
The 62-year-old private investigator had sued Ms Amarjit Kour, Mr Gregory Tang Wee Thiang, Ms Belinda Ang Choo Poh and Mr Peter Cuthbert Low, of the now-defunct law firm Peter Low Tang & Belinda Ang, for failing in their professional duties in connection with a property sale in 2002.
A fifth lawyer, Mr Andrew John Hanam, was found not to be at fault as he was not involved in the agreement. He had been engaged only to act for Mr Suppiah’s divorce from Madam Nee Shyan Huey in May 1996.
In his judgment last Wednesday, Judge Tseng said the four lawyers’ interpretation of the provisions of the agreement, titled Exclusive Authorisation to Sell, renders the property seller ‘at the complete mercy’ of ERA and could result in a ‘most unfair situation’.
Signed in June 2001 by Madam Nee, 44, an insurance agent, the agreement granted ERA a commission of 2 per cent on the first $1 million of the purchase price and 1 per cent for any amount in excess paid for the matrimonial home in Punggol.
This was payable if the company introduced a buyer or if the property was sold within three months.
After the 90-day period, the agreement would continue from week to week unless terminated by either party.
The proposed selling price was $2.4million, but ERA found a potential buyer who offered only $1.6 million in February the following year.
Mr Suppiah rejected it as too low, and a month later, he found a buyer who was willing to pay $1.75 million.
When the sale was completed, Mr Suppiah expected his share of the sales proceeds to be $240,000, with the rest of the money going to Madam Nee and to a trust fund for the couple’s two daughters.
When he received only $212,000 in July 2002, as $28,000 had been taken out for the agency’s commission, he instructed Mr Hanam to write to the other lawyers to withhold payment, as he had found the buyer himself.
But by then it was too late, as they had already released the money to ERA.
It was argued that since the agreement was not terminated, ERA was entitled to the commission even if the agency did nothing after the three-month period.
However, Judge Tseng said that this would amount to ‘unjust enrichment’ for the agency.
The court also dismissed the defendants’ claims that they were acting only for Madam Nee and did not owe her ex-husband any professional obligation.
The judge noted that their law firm clearly stated it was acting for both parties in its correspondence with the Central Provident Fund Board and the Comptroller of Property Tax.
Mr Suppiah’s lawyer Alain A. Johns also convinced the court that there was ‘a total lack of consideration on the part of ERA’ in the agreement, which he said should be regarded as ‘void and unenforceable’.
The four lawyers, who were also ordered to pay costs, are considering an appeal against the verdict.
Source: Straits Times, 5 Apr 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
S’poreans in JB housing nightmare back in court
Singaporean Norsiah Suja’i thought she had found her dream home when she forked out her life savings to buy a double-storey terrace house in Johor Baru in 1998 for more than RM335,000 (S$141,500 now).
Instead, the retired teacher and 72 other Singaporeans in Taman Permata are about to lose their property to the developer’s bank – after the developer went bust in 2000.
The bank won a court order from the Johor Baru High Court to auction off their property four years ago. The court also ruled that the houses were an abandoned project.
Yesterday, some 30 of the 73 Singaporeans travelled by bus to Putrajaya, about 40km from Kuala Lumpur, to hear their appeal against the High Court’s decision.
But the case was adjourned after their lawyer Rosli Kamaruddin asked for one of the three judges to recuse himself, as he was the same judge who allowed the bank to auction off three houses in Taman Permata.
‘We have suffered so much loss, I hope we can all get some justice in this case,’ said Madam Norsiah, 65.
Most of the Singaporean buyers are retirees, who paid for their houses in cash with their pension and life savings.
The developer had failed to deliver on its promise that the 136-unit Taman Permata would be a posh residential area complete with condo facilities such as a swimming pool and security guards.
Most of the Singapore buyers have been forced to live there now, as they cannot afford another property in Singapore.
‘I spend my weekdays in JB and I visit my daughters in Singapore on weekends,’ said Madam Norsiah. ‘I have no choice.’
Another buyer, who wanted to be known only as Madam Safia, 60, said the JB High Court had also ordered buyers to pay another 10 per cent on top of what they paid for their houses to obtain their title deeds. But only a few were willing to pay and even then they did not immediately get the title deeds.
She said although the houses were built in 1998, they were allowed to move in only after they obtained the certificate of fitness in 2005. ‘By that time, our houses were already in bad shape and each of us had to fork out about RM50,000 to fix our houses,’ she said.
Madam Safia said they had tried various ways to save their houses.
In 2003, they had even met then Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and then Local Government and Housing Minister Ong Ka Ting.
The bank’s lawyers declined to comment on the case.
Source: Straits Times, 25 Mar 2010
Instead, the retired teacher and 72 other Singaporeans in Taman Permata are about to lose their property to the developer’s bank – after the developer went bust in 2000.
The bank won a court order from the Johor Baru High Court to auction off their property four years ago. The court also ruled that the houses were an abandoned project.
Yesterday, some 30 of the 73 Singaporeans travelled by bus to Putrajaya, about 40km from Kuala Lumpur, to hear their appeal against the High Court’s decision.
But the case was adjourned after their lawyer Rosli Kamaruddin asked for one of the three judges to recuse himself, as he was the same judge who allowed the bank to auction off three houses in Taman Permata.
‘We have suffered so much loss, I hope we can all get some justice in this case,’ said Madam Norsiah, 65.
Most of the Singaporean buyers are retirees, who paid for their houses in cash with their pension and life savings.
The developer had failed to deliver on its promise that the 136-unit Taman Permata would be a posh residential area complete with condo facilities such as a swimming pool and security guards.
Most of the Singapore buyers have been forced to live there now, as they cannot afford another property in Singapore.
‘I spend my weekdays in JB and I visit my daughters in Singapore on weekends,’ said Madam Norsiah. ‘I have no choice.’
Another buyer, who wanted to be known only as Madam Safia, 60, said the JB High Court had also ordered buyers to pay another 10 per cent on top of what they paid for their houses to obtain their title deeds. But only a few were willing to pay and even then they did not immediately get the title deeds.
She said although the houses were built in 1998, they were allowed to move in only after they obtained the certificate of fitness in 2005. ‘By that time, our houses were already in bad shape and each of us had to fork out about RM50,000 to fix our houses,’ she said.
Madam Safia said they had tried various ways to save their houses.
In 2003, they had even met then Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and then Local Government and Housing Minister Ong Ka Ting.
The bank’s lawyers declined to comment on the case.
Source: Straits Times, 25 Mar 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Missing lawyer squirrelled away more than $10m
RUNAWAY lawyer Zulkifli Mohd Amin had moved more than $10 million out of his firm’s client’s account over a 10-month period in 2007, a sum larger than the $6 million previously thought.
These details emerged in a 56-page report by a disciplinary tribunal comprising retired Judge of Appeal L.P. Thean and lawyer Tan Chuan Thye.
The tribunal, appointed in August last year by the Chief Justice to formally investigate the case, found Zulkifli guilty of a total of 211 charges of misconduct.
Zulkifli was one of three partners of the now-defunct firm of Sadique Marican and ZM Amin.
He is not around to face the music, but his partners, Mr Mohd Sadique
Ibrahim Marican and Mr Anand Kumar Toofani Beldar, will have to face a Court of Three Judges for breaching accounting rules and failing to safeguard clients’ money.
Out of the 211 charges against Zulkifli, 208 are related to unauthorised withdrawals of funds from the account used to hold clients’ money.
The remaining charges were for failing to ensure that the client’s account was not overdrawn and failing to keep the books in order.
The accounts of the firm were managed by Zulkifli.
The other partners have each been found guilty of three charges of failing to keep the books in order and failing to supervise transactions involving clients’ money.
In November 2007, Mr Sadique and Mr Anand told the Law Society that Zulkifli was missing and they suspected him of misappropriating money from the firm.
The firm’s accounts were inspected.
Among other things, it was found that the firm had been issuing cash cheques after May 15, 2007 even though it was no longer allowed to do so under the rules.
Fund transfers were made and cash cheques were issued without supporting documents.
Although Mr Sadique’s signature appears on some forms and cheques, a handwriting expert has concluded that they were forged.
The 211 charges form the most serious of three separate disciplinary proceedings against Zulkifli. The tribunal has found that the case is serious enough to be referred to the Court of Three Judges, which has the power to suspend or strike lawyers off the rolls.
On Tuesday, another of the three cases, involving Zulkifli’s inaction in a conveyancing transaction that caused his clients to lose out on a property deal, was brought before the Court of Three Judges by the Law Society seeking to disbar Zulkifli.
This drew criticism from the judges, who questioned why the society brought up less serious charges when it was well-known that Zulkifli had done worse. The court asked for more details about his other disciplinary proceedings.
Yesterday, it emerged that Zulkifli was found guilty earlier this month of the 211 charges. Both cases will be dealt with together by the court.
The third case is pending.
According to sources, the less serious complaint was made in November 2007 and the disciplinary tribunal, in its report in October last year, said the matter should be brought to the Court of Three Judges.
By law, the society had a one-month deadline to make the application.
It is understood that the society had considered deferring the less serious case, but as it was unsure how long it would take to investigate the 211 charges, it decided to go ahead with the less serious case.
Source: Straits Times, 27 Feb 2010
These details emerged in a 56-page report by a disciplinary tribunal comprising retired Judge of Appeal L.P. Thean and lawyer Tan Chuan Thye.
The tribunal, appointed in August last year by the Chief Justice to formally investigate the case, found Zulkifli guilty of a total of 211 charges of misconduct.
Zulkifli was one of three partners of the now-defunct firm of Sadique Marican and ZM Amin.
He is not around to face the music, but his partners, Mr Mohd Sadique
Ibrahim Marican and Mr Anand Kumar Toofani Beldar, will have to face a Court of Three Judges for breaching accounting rules and failing to safeguard clients’ money.
Out of the 211 charges against Zulkifli, 208 are related to unauthorised withdrawals of funds from the account used to hold clients’ money.
The remaining charges were for failing to ensure that the client’s account was not overdrawn and failing to keep the books in order.
The accounts of the firm were managed by Zulkifli.
The other partners have each been found guilty of three charges of failing to keep the books in order and failing to supervise transactions involving clients’ money.
In November 2007, Mr Sadique and Mr Anand told the Law Society that Zulkifli was missing and they suspected him of misappropriating money from the firm.
The firm’s accounts were inspected.
Among other things, it was found that the firm had been issuing cash cheques after May 15, 2007 even though it was no longer allowed to do so under the rules.
Fund transfers were made and cash cheques were issued without supporting documents.
Although Mr Sadique’s signature appears on some forms and cheques, a handwriting expert has concluded that they were forged.
The 211 charges form the most serious of three separate disciplinary proceedings against Zulkifli. The tribunal has found that the case is serious enough to be referred to the Court of Three Judges, which has the power to suspend or strike lawyers off the rolls.
On Tuesday, another of the three cases, involving Zulkifli’s inaction in a conveyancing transaction that caused his clients to lose out on a property deal, was brought before the Court of Three Judges by the Law Society seeking to disbar Zulkifli.
This drew criticism from the judges, who questioned why the society brought up less serious charges when it was well-known that Zulkifli had done worse. The court asked for more details about his other disciplinary proceedings.
Yesterday, it emerged that Zulkifli was found guilty earlier this month of the 211 charges. Both cases will be dealt with together by the court.
The third case is pending.
According to sources, the less serious complaint was made in November 2007 and the disciplinary tribunal, in its report in October last year, said the matter should be brought to the Court of Three Judges.
By law, the society had a one-month deadline to make the application.
It is understood that the society had considered deferring the less serious case, but as it was unsure how long it would take to investigate the 211 charges, it decided to go ahead with the less serious case.
Source: Straits Times, 27 Feb 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
High Court okays Horizon Towers lawsuit
MINORITY owners have had a key victory in yet another court fight over the failed $500 million Horizon Towers en-bloc deal.
An assistant registrar in the High Court yesterday threw out a bid by two former members of the sales committee to halt an action against them by the owners.
The three sets of minority owners are suing the two – ex-committee chairman Arjun Samtani and ex-member Tan Kah Gee – over costs incurred when they tried to block the collective sale.
They want to be reimbursed for more than $800,000 in costs. This includes the cost of hiring lawyers to advise them and other administrative costs.
The sum is expected to be partially offset when the costs awarded to the owners by the Court of Appeal last year, after the en-bloc deal was quashed, are assessed.
The owners argue that both committee members were ‘key players in the process leading up to the commencement, facilitation, management and finalisation of the collective sale process’, according to court documents.
Lawyers for the committee members countered that the minority owners’ suit should be struck off as the action was ’scandalous, frivolous (and) vexatious’. They also pointed out that the Court of Appeal awarded costs last April in a case that dealt with all outstanding issues of reimbursement.
But the minority owners argued that the new case is different from the one settled last year.
In that case last year, costs were awarded for the minority owners’ conduct in opposing the proposed sale by the consenting majority owners.
The present action is different as it is based on what they claim is the lack of good faith in the collective sale deal struck by Mr Arjun and Mr Tan as members of the sales committee.
They allege that this ‘lack of good faith’ resulted in minority owners having to put in a great deal of effort and spend a lot of money to oppose the sale.
In effect, they claim there was a breach of fiduciary duties and they want to be compensated for the costs from the resulting damages.
Mr Kannan Ramesh, who is acting for the owners, said in his submissions: ‘The causes of action in both cases are appreciably different.’
At a closed-door hearing yesterday, assistant registrar Leong Weng Tat ruled in a reserved judgement that the suit by the minority owners should proceed.
Mr Arjun and Mr Tan, represented by Mr N. Sreenivasan and senior counsel Tan Cheng Han respectively, can appeal to the High Court against the decision, otherwise the case will advance to a full hearing. Lawyers say either way, the case may eventually go to the Court of Appeal.
The Horizon Towers collective sale spanned more than two years and involved two Strata Titles Board hearings and two High Court hearings before being thrown out by the Court of Appeal last year.
Source: Straits Times, 25 Feb 2010
An assistant registrar in the High Court yesterday threw out a bid by two former members of the sales committee to halt an action against them by the owners.
The three sets of minority owners are suing the two – ex-committee chairman Arjun Samtani and ex-member Tan Kah Gee – over costs incurred when they tried to block the collective sale.
They want to be reimbursed for more than $800,000 in costs. This includes the cost of hiring lawyers to advise them and other administrative costs.
The sum is expected to be partially offset when the costs awarded to the owners by the Court of Appeal last year, after the en-bloc deal was quashed, are assessed.
The owners argue that both committee members were ‘key players in the process leading up to the commencement, facilitation, management and finalisation of the collective sale process’, according to court documents.
Lawyers for the committee members countered that the minority owners’ suit should be struck off as the action was ’scandalous, frivolous (and) vexatious’. They also pointed out that the Court of Appeal awarded costs last April in a case that dealt with all outstanding issues of reimbursement.
But the minority owners argued that the new case is different from the one settled last year.
In that case last year, costs were awarded for the minority owners’ conduct in opposing the proposed sale by the consenting majority owners.
The present action is different as it is based on what they claim is the lack of good faith in the collective sale deal struck by Mr Arjun and Mr Tan as members of the sales committee.
They allege that this ‘lack of good faith’ resulted in minority owners having to put in a great deal of effort and spend a lot of money to oppose the sale.
In effect, they claim there was a breach of fiduciary duties and they want to be compensated for the costs from the resulting damages.
Mr Kannan Ramesh, who is acting for the owners, said in his submissions: ‘The causes of action in both cases are appreciably different.’
At a closed-door hearing yesterday, assistant registrar Leong Weng Tat ruled in a reserved judgement that the suit by the minority owners should proceed.
Mr Arjun and Mr Tan, represented by Mr N. Sreenivasan and senior counsel Tan Cheng Han respectively, can appeal to the High Court against the decision, otherwise the case will advance to a full hearing. Lawyers say either way, the case may eventually go to the Court of Appeal.
The Horizon Towers collective sale spanned more than two years and involved two Strata Titles Board hearings and two High Court hearings before being thrown out by the Court of Appeal last year.
Source: Straits Times, 25 Feb 2010
Horizon Towers lawsuits headed for trial
High Court dismisses striking out action by 2 former sales committee members
The latest legal tussle involving Horizon Towers looks set to go into full swing, with the High Court having dismissed the action by the two defendants to strike out the lawsuits filed against them.
This means the court will hear the claims brought by three sets of minority owners against the two former sales committee members – unless the defendants succeed in appealing against yesterday’s decision.
BT understands that the first defendant – former sales committee chairman, Arjun Samtani – will appeal the High Court decision, while the second defendant, Tan Kah Gee, is still deliberating if he should appeal.
The High Court yesterday also ordered both Mr Samtani and Mr Tan to jointly bear the costs of the striking-out application and the court hearing – amounting to a total of $6,000.
The minority owners are suing the two former sales committee members to reclaim close to $1 million in legal and administrative costs which they say they incurred during the lengthy fight to keep their homes.
The en bloc sale of Horizon Towers was a saga that dragged out for more than two years, and involved several High Court and Strata Titles Board hearings. The Court of Appeal eventually decided in April last year that the deal could not go through because the development’s sales committee had failed in its duty.
The Court of Appeal had ordered the bulk of costs to be borne by the development’s potential buyer, Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL), and its majority owners.
But three sets of minority owners, represented by Kannan Ramesh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership, are now seeking compensation for the sums not covered by the Court of Appeal judgment. The three sets of owners are seeking between $117,000 and $370,000 in costs – making for a total claim of more than $800,000.
The minorities say they were made to defend their homes against an en bloc process actuated by a lack of good faith on the part of the sales committee, and had to spend much for their effort.
They said Mr Samtani and Mr Tan were ‘key players in the process leading up to the commencement, facilitation, management and finalisation of the collective sale process’.
In his defence, Mr Samtani – represented by N Sreenivasan of Straits Law Practice — said he was not alone in driving the sale process. He said ‘each and every member of the SC (sales committee) played an equally important role’ and that he ‘did not have any special powers’ that could influence the committee’s decisions.
Mr Samtani also claimed that the committee ‘followed up on all expressions of offer’ for Horizon Towers and that it received no offer better than HPL’s at the relevant time. He said the committee was advised by its lawyers to proceed with the HPL offer.
Mr Tan, represented by Senior Counsel Tan Cheng Han and Ian Lim of TSMP Law Corporation, said he was ‘not a key player’ and cited various correspondence and minutes of sales committee meetings which he said showed that he did not play a major role in the various aspects of the collective sale.
Mr Tan also said that the sales committee did not seriously consider an alternative offer made at the time by a Vineyard Holdings, as it had ‘questioned the credibility of the expression of interest from Vineyard and their level of seriousness given that Vineyard was a Hong Kong company that was not well known and its lawyers were not from a Singaporean firm, but from a small Malaysian law firm’.
He claims he suggested waiting for a higher offer, but that the majority of the sales committee did not agree. He said the sales committee genuinely felt they would not get a better offer than the one by HPL, and that they had been advised by their lawyers to accept the offer.
Mr Tan had also sought to strike out the minorities’ suits against him and Mr Samtani, saying that the entire remedy sought by the minorities was already dealt with by the Court of Appeal last April, when it decided on how it would award costs to the various parties. But the High Court chose to dismiss this application yesterday.
The defendants have 14 days to submit their appeal.
Source: Business Times, 25 Feb 2010
The latest legal tussle involving Horizon Towers looks set to go into full swing, with the High Court having dismissed the action by the two defendants to strike out the lawsuits filed against them.
This means the court will hear the claims brought by three sets of minority owners against the two former sales committee members – unless the defendants succeed in appealing against yesterday’s decision.
BT understands that the first defendant – former sales committee chairman, Arjun Samtani – will appeal the High Court decision, while the second defendant, Tan Kah Gee, is still deliberating if he should appeal.
The High Court yesterday also ordered both Mr Samtani and Mr Tan to jointly bear the costs of the striking-out application and the court hearing – amounting to a total of $6,000.
The minority owners are suing the two former sales committee members to reclaim close to $1 million in legal and administrative costs which they say they incurred during the lengthy fight to keep their homes.
The en bloc sale of Horizon Towers was a saga that dragged out for more than two years, and involved several High Court and Strata Titles Board hearings. The Court of Appeal eventually decided in April last year that the deal could not go through because the development’s sales committee had failed in its duty.
The Court of Appeal had ordered the bulk of costs to be borne by the development’s potential buyer, Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL), and its majority owners.
But three sets of minority owners, represented by Kannan Ramesh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership, are now seeking compensation for the sums not covered by the Court of Appeal judgment. The three sets of owners are seeking between $117,000 and $370,000 in costs – making for a total claim of more than $800,000.
The minorities say they were made to defend their homes against an en bloc process actuated by a lack of good faith on the part of the sales committee, and had to spend much for their effort.
They said Mr Samtani and Mr Tan were ‘key players in the process leading up to the commencement, facilitation, management and finalisation of the collective sale process’.
In his defence, Mr Samtani – represented by N Sreenivasan of Straits Law Practice — said he was not alone in driving the sale process. He said ‘each and every member of the SC (sales committee) played an equally important role’ and that he ‘did not have any special powers’ that could influence the committee’s decisions.
Mr Samtani also claimed that the committee ‘followed up on all expressions of offer’ for Horizon Towers and that it received no offer better than HPL’s at the relevant time. He said the committee was advised by its lawyers to proceed with the HPL offer.
Mr Tan, represented by Senior Counsel Tan Cheng Han and Ian Lim of TSMP Law Corporation, said he was ‘not a key player’ and cited various correspondence and minutes of sales committee meetings which he said showed that he did not play a major role in the various aspects of the collective sale.
Mr Tan also said that the sales committee did not seriously consider an alternative offer made at the time by a Vineyard Holdings, as it had ‘questioned the credibility of the expression of interest from Vineyard and their level of seriousness given that Vineyard was a Hong Kong company that was not well known and its lawyers were not from a Singaporean firm, but from a small Malaysian law firm’.
He claims he suggested waiting for a higher offer, but that the majority of the sales committee did not agree. He said the sales committee genuinely felt they would not get a better offer than the one by HPL, and that they had been advised by their lawyers to accept the offer.
Mr Tan had also sought to strike out the minorities’ suits against him and Mr Samtani, saying that the entire remedy sought by the minorities was already dealt with by the Court of Appeal last April, when it decided on how it would award costs to the various parties. But the High Court chose to dismiss this application yesterday.
The defendants have 14 days to submit their appeal.
Source: Business Times, 25 Feb 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Law Society’s handling of case criticised
HE SKIPPED town with a purported $6 million in clients’ money, yet the Law Society used relatively minor charges of misconduct as a basis to get lawyer Zulkifli Mohd Amin disbarred.
The move puzzled the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body in the legal profession, which has powers to suspend or strike wayward lawyers off the rolls.
Justice V.K. Rajah said he was perplexed at why the Law Society had laid some minor charges against Zulkifli.
‘We all know that this is a lawyer who absconded with the second largest amount of money in Singapore’s legal history,’ he said.
But the relatively minor charges Zulkifli faced, added Justice Rajah, did not show the gravity of what he had done.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong remarked that the court should not be hearing disciplinary proceedings in stages.
He said that if the court felt the facts of the current case did not warrant Zulkifli being struck off, that means the Law Society would have to come back again with another set of charges.
Chief Justice Chan said there was ’something very wrong’ with the way the Law Society was going about handling the case, describing it as ‘worrying’.
The court adjourned the case to Friday for the Law Society to provide information on what else Zulkifli is said to have done, how much he had absconded with and details of any other pending disciplinary proceedings against him.
When contacted, a Law Society spokesman said the society was unable to comment as the matter is still pending.
Zulkifli, who had practised law since 2000, made headlines when he fled in November 2007, reportedly with $6 million in clients’ funds meant for property deals.
Yesterday, Mr Anthony Lee, counsel for the Law Society, applied to the Court of Three Judges to strike Zulkifli off the rolls over a specific conveyancing transaction.
In the case, he did not swipe any money, but his failure to follow up and keep his clients informed of the progress of the transaction caused them to lose out on a property deal in 2007.
The clients, a married couple, had engaged Zulkifli to act for them in a property purchase. They had issued cheques for the necessary payments and got a bank loan, but Zulkifli neither made the payments to the developer, nor did he draw down from the loan to meet the payments.
He also failed to tell his clients about the numerous notices and reminders for payment.
As a result of not getting the payments, the developer annulled the sale. Last year, a two-man disciplinary tribunal found Zulkifli guilty of misconduct.
He remains at large.
Source: Straits Times, 24 Feb 2010
The move puzzled the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body in the legal profession, which has powers to suspend or strike wayward lawyers off the rolls.
Justice V.K. Rajah said he was perplexed at why the Law Society had laid some minor charges against Zulkifli.
‘We all know that this is a lawyer who absconded with the second largest amount of money in Singapore’s legal history,’ he said.
But the relatively minor charges Zulkifli faced, added Justice Rajah, did not show the gravity of what he had done.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong remarked that the court should not be hearing disciplinary proceedings in stages.
He said that if the court felt the facts of the current case did not warrant Zulkifli being struck off, that means the Law Society would have to come back again with another set of charges.
Chief Justice Chan said there was ’something very wrong’ with the way the Law Society was going about handling the case, describing it as ‘worrying’.
The court adjourned the case to Friday for the Law Society to provide information on what else Zulkifli is said to have done, how much he had absconded with and details of any other pending disciplinary proceedings against him.
When contacted, a Law Society spokesman said the society was unable to comment as the matter is still pending.
Zulkifli, who had practised law since 2000, made headlines when he fled in November 2007, reportedly with $6 million in clients’ funds meant for property deals.
Yesterday, Mr Anthony Lee, counsel for the Law Society, applied to the Court of Three Judges to strike Zulkifli off the rolls over a specific conveyancing transaction.
In the case, he did not swipe any money, but his failure to follow up and keep his clients informed of the progress of the transaction caused them to lose out on a property deal in 2007.
The clients, a married couple, had engaged Zulkifli to act for them in a property purchase. They had issued cheques for the necessary payments and got a bank loan, but Zulkifli neither made the payments to the developer, nor did he draw down from the loan to meet the payments.
He also failed to tell his clients about the numerous notices and reminders for payment.
As a result of not getting the payments, the developer annulled the sale. Last year, a two-man disciplinary tribunal found Zulkifli guilty of misconduct.
He remains at large.
Source: Straits Times, 24 Feb 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Conveyancing accounts proposed to hold clients’ funds
The Ministry of Law is proposing that law firms set up a new type of bank account – a conveyancing account – for lawyers to hold funds entrusted to them by homebuyers and sellers.
The pilot trial of the new scheme could take place as soon as April this year, with the entire scheme taking off as early as next year, BT understands.
These conveyancing accounts will have a host of security measures in place to make sure that lawyers cannot abscond with clients’ money, such as requiring signatures from both the buyer’s and the seller’s lawyers before any money can be moved.
‘A home is often a person’s most substantial asset. The money intended for its purchase and arising from its sale should be properly protected,’ the Law Ministry said in a statement yesterday.
The proposed changes follow the infamous case involving lawyer David Rasif, who ran off with some $10 million of his clients’ money in 2006, as well as other recent cases in which lawyers absconded with their clients’ conveyancing money.
Conveyancing money, which is used for housing transactions, includes stamp duty payment and option deposits. A seller receives an option deposit – typically 4 or 9 per cent of the purchase price, which a buyer pays – once the option to purchase is exercised.
The law currently does not prohibit lawyers from holding clients’ conveyancing money.
In a public consultation paper released in August 2009, the Ministry of Law suggested prohibiting lawyers from holding any conveyancing money. The Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) will be the main entity appointed to hold conveyancing money, the paper said then.
But after public feedback – which included suggestions to allow banks to hold conveyancing money – the ministry has made revisions to the proposed measures. A second public consultation paper was released today.
Under the newest set of measures, approved banks will be permitted to open conveyancing accounts for law firms. But, as an alternative, buyers and sellers may still choose to use the service provided by SAL to hold option deposits in private property or HDB industrial/commercial property transactions.
The Law Ministry also said that a central signature repository will be established to allow the approved banks and SAL to check the signatures.
A pilot trial of the proposed measures will be conducted soon. BT understands that about 30 law firms and the three local banks – DBS Bank, United Overseas Bank (UOB) and OCBC Bank – will be involved in the pilot, which could take place in April and May this year. The new measures could be implemented in early 2011, sources said.
Lawyers welcome the new proposed measures, though they add that it will mean more time for administrative procedures, such as getting the counter signatures.
They also highlight some concerns. For one thing, they say the cost to customers could increase if banks charge a fee for the conveyancing accounts. For another, the interest earned from these accounts will be kept by the banks, as opposed to the current practice where interest earned from law firms’ client accounts is returned to the clients.
Source: Business Times, 18 Jan 2010
The pilot trial of the new scheme could take place as soon as April this year, with the entire scheme taking off as early as next year, BT understands.
These conveyancing accounts will have a host of security measures in place to make sure that lawyers cannot abscond with clients’ money, such as requiring signatures from both the buyer’s and the seller’s lawyers before any money can be moved.
‘A home is often a person’s most substantial asset. The money intended for its purchase and arising from its sale should be properly protected,’ the Law Ministry said in a statement yesterday.
The proposed changes follow the infamous case involving lawyer David Rasif, who ran off with some $10 million of his clients’ money in 2006, as well as other recent cases in which lawyers absconded with their clients’ conveyancing money.
Conveyancing money, which is used for housing transactions, includes stamp duty payment and option deposits. A seller receives an option deposit – typically 4 or 9 per cent of the purchase price, which a buyer pays – once the option to purchase is exercised.
The law currently does not prohibit lawyers from holding clients’ conveyancing money.
In a public consultation paper released in August 2009, the Ministry of Law suggested prohibiting lawyers from holding any conveyancing money. The Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) will be the main entity appointed to hold conveyancing money, the paper said then.
But after public feedback – which included suggestions to allow banks to hold conveyancing money – the ministry has made revisions to the proposed measures. A second public consultation paper was released today.
Under the newest set of measures, approved banks will be permitted to open conveyancing accounts for law firms. But, as an alternative, buyers and sellers may still choose to use the service provided by SAL to hold option deposits in private property or HDB industrial/commercial property transactions.
The Law Ministry also said that a central signature repository will be established to allow the approved banks and SAL to check the signatures.
A pilot trial of the proposed measures will be conducted soon. BT understands that about 30 law firms and the three local banks – DBS Bank, United Overseas Bank (UOB) and OCBC Bank – will be involved in the pilot, which could take place in April and May this year. The new measures could be implemented in early 2011, sources said.
Lawyers welcome the new proposed measures, though they add that it will mean more time for administrative procedures, such as getting the counter signatures.
They also highlight some concerns. For one thing, they say the cost to customers could increase if banks charge a fee for the conveyancing accounts. For another, the interest earned from these accounts will be kept by the banks, as opposed to the current practice where interest earned from law firms’ client accounts is returned to the clients.
Source: Business Times, 18 Jan 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Horizon Twrs defendant moves to strike out suit
Says he was not a key player in en bloc deal sales committee
The newest instalment of the Horizon Towers saga has taken a fresh turn, with one of the parties being sued now applying for the lawsuits against him and another to be struck out.
Tan Kah Gee, a member of the original sales committee being sued by a group of minority owners, yesterday applied to the High Court for the suit to be struck out – saying the action was ’scandalous, frivolous (and) vexatious’.
He also filed his defence against the claims made against him, saying he was not a key player in the sales committee which brokered the en bloc sale of the development.
Mr Tan – and former sales committee chairman Arjun Samtani – are being sued by three sets of minority owners, who are looking to reclaim close to $1 million in legal and administrative costs which they say they incurred during the lengthy fight to keep their homes.
The minorities say they were made to defend their homes against an en bloc process actuated by a lack of good faith on the part of the sales committee, and had to spend much for their effort.
The collective sale of Horizon Towers was an affair which spanned more than two years and involved two Strata Titles Board (STB) hearings and two High Court hearings before finally being decided in the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled against the sale of the development in April last year, saying the sales committee failed to get the best price possible for Horizon Towers. It awarded costs for the second High Court hearing, the second STB hearing and the Court of Appeal hearing to the minority owners who had objected to the sale.
But the minority owners are now suing Mr Tan and Mr Samtani to claim sums which they said they had spent in excess of what the Court of Appeal has awarded them. The three sets of owners are seeking between $117,000 and $370,000 in costs – making for a total of more than $800,000.
But Mr Tan – through his lawyers Senior Counsel Tan Cheng Han and Ian Lim of TSMP Law Corporation – has moved to strike out their claim. He says the entire remedy sought by the minorities was already dealt with by the Court of Appeal last April, when it decided on how it would award costs to the various parties. He said their claim ‘does not form a legitimate item of damage in a separate cause of action’, neither does it ‘flow from a different and additional wrong’ from the Court of Appeal judgment.
Mr Tan also responded to allegations made by the minorities that he was one of the ‘key players in the process leading up to the commencement, facilitation, management and finalisation of the collective sale process’.
In his defence, he claimed he was ‘not a key player’ and cited various correspondence and minutes of sales committee meetings which he said showed that he did not play a major role in the various aspects of the collective sale.
He also responded to the minorities’ claim that he and Mr Samtani ‘pushed for a quick sale of the property for their personal benefit’ because both had bought additional units in Horizon Towers, at the start of the collective sale process, and were keen to profit from that.
Mr Tan’s defence was that he bought a second unit because the location and price were very attractive, and that he had acted in good faith at all times. He said he disclosed his purchase of a second unit to the rest of the sales committee, as well as to one of the minority owners now suing him. He claims he also disclosed the purchase to the sales committee’s legal advisers and was told that he did not have to disclose the purchase of this unit.
The minorities had also claimed, in their suit, that the sales committee had failed to follow up on alternative offers for Horizon Towers, including a higher offer from a Vineyard Holdings. They cited the Court of Appeal judgment, which ruled that the sales committee had failed ‘to proactively follow up on the Vineyard offer and other expressions of interest’.
Mr Tan said Vineyard’s and other expressions of interest ‘never substantively materialised’ and that the sales committee had ‘questioned the credibility of the expression of interest from Vineyard and their level of seriousness given that Vineyard was a Hong Kong company that was not well known and its lawyers were not from a Singaporean firm, but from a small Malaysian law firm’.
He claims he suggested waiting for a higher offer, but that the majority of the sales committee did not agree. He said the sales committee genuinely felt they would not get a better offer than the one by Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL), and that they had been advised by their lawyers to accept the offer.
The minorities will have 14 days to respond to Mr Tan’s defence – and 14 days to respond to Mr Samtani’s defence, which was filed last Wednesday. The court will also convene a date for the hearing of Mr Tan’s striking-out summons.
The minority owners are represented by Kannan Ramesh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership. Mr Samtani is represented by N Sreenivasan from Straits Law Practice.
Source: Business Times, 27 Jan 2010
The newest instalment of the Horizon Towers saga has taken a fresh turn, with one of the parties being sued now applying for the lawsuits against him and another to be struck out.
Tan Kah Gee, a member of the original sales committee being sued by a group of minority owners, yesterday applied to the High Court for the suit to be struck out – saying the action was ’scandalous, frivolous (and) vexatious’.
He also filed his defence against the claims made against him, saying he was not a key player in the sales committee which brokered the en bloc sale of the development.
Mr Tan – and former sales committee chairman Arjun Samtani – are being sued by three sets of minority owners, who are looking to reclaim close to $1 million in legal and administrative costs which they say they incurred during the lengthy fight to keep their homes.
The minorities say they were made to defend their homes against an en bloc process actuated by a lack of good faith on the part of the sales committee, and had to spend much for their effort.
The collective sale of Horizon Towers was an affair which spanned more than two years and involved two Strata Titles Board (STB) hearings and two High Court hearings before finally being decided in the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled against the sale of the development in April last year, saying the sales committee failed to get the best price possible for Horizon Towers. It awarded costs for the second High Court hearing, the second STB hearing and the Court of Appeal hearing to the minority owners who had objected to the sale.
But the minority owners are now suing Mr Tan and Mr Samtani to claim sums which they said they had spent in excess of what the Court of Appeal has awarded them. The three sets of owners are seeking between $117,000 and $370,000 in costs – making for a total of more than $800,000.
But Mr Tan – through his lawyers Senior Counsel Tan Cheng Han and Ian Lim of TSMP Law Corporation – has moved to strike out their claim. He says the entire remedy sought by the minorities was already dealt with by the Court of Appeal last April, when it decided on how it would award costs to the various parties. He said their claim ‘does not form a legitimate item of damage in a separate cause of action’, neither does it ‘flow from a different and additional wrong’ from the Court of Appeal judgment.
Mr Tan also responded to allegations made by the minorities that he was one of the ‘key players in the process leading up to the commencement, facilitation, management and finalisation of the collective sale process’.
In his defence, he claimed he was ‘not a key player’ and cited various correspondence and minutes of sales committee meetings which he said showed that he did not play a major role in the various aspects of the collective sale.
He also responded to the minorities’ claim that he and Mr Samtani ‘pushed for a quick sale of the property for their personal benefit’ because both had bought additional units in Horizon Towers, at the start of the collective sale process, and were keen to profit from that.
Mr Tan’s defence was that he bought a second unit because the location and price were very attractive, and that he had acted in good faith at all times. He said he disclosed his purchase of a second unit to the rest of the sales committee, as well as to one of the minority owners now suing him. He claims he also disclosed the purchase to the sales committee’s legal advisers and was told that he did not have to disclose the purchase of this unit.
The minorities had also claimed, in their suit, that the sales committee had failed to follow up on alternative offers for Horizon Towers, including a higher offer from a Vineyard Holdings. They cited the Court of Appeal judgment, which ruled that the sales committee had failed ‘to proactively follow up on the Vineyard offer and other expressions of interest’.
Mr Tan said Vineyard’s and other expressions of interest ‘never substantively materialised’ and that the sales committee had ‘questioned the credibility of the expression of interest from Vineyard and their level of seriousness given that Vineyard was a Hong Kong company that was not well known and its lawyers were not from a Singaporean firm, but from a small Malaysian law firm’.
He claims he suggested waiting for a higher offer, but that the majority of the sales committee did not agree. He said the sales committee genuinely felt they would not get a better offer than the one by Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL), and that they had been advised by their lawyers to accept the offer.
The minorities will have 14 days to respond to Mr Tan’s defence – and 14 days to respond to Mr Samtani’s defence, which was filed last Wednesday. The court will also convene a date for the hearing of Mr Tan’s striking-out summons.
The minority owners are represented by Kannan Ramesh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership. Mr Samtani is represented by N Sreenivasan from Straits Law Practice.
Source: Business Times, 27 Jan 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Horizon Towers saga roars back to life with new lawsuit
Suit filed against some members of original sales panel
A fresh lawsuit has just been filed over the failed en bloc sale of Horizon Towers – and a new chapter in the long-running saga is about to begin.
It’s a suit that’s set to be a closely watched one in Singapore, seen as a litmus test for the possible legal action that can be brought to bear against those involved in this, as well as all other, en bloc sales.
A group of Horizon Towers’ minority owners – those who had originally opposed the sale of the Leonie Hill development – are now suing some members of the original sales committee for their handling of the en bloc sale.
According to documents filed with the High Court, these minority owners are looking to reclaim close to $1 million in legal and administrative costs which they say they’ve incurred during the lengthy fight to keep their homes.
The sale of Horizon Towers – first tabled for $500 million to Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) in January 2007 – has been one of the most dramatic and long-drawn- out en bloc battles in Singapore’s history. The whole affair spanned more than two years and went back and forth between the Strata Titles Board (STB) and the High Court twice before finally being decided in the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled in April last year that the deal could not go through because the development’s sales committee had failed to fulfil its duty on several counts.
And now, three sets of minority owners – represented by Kannan Ramesh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership – have cited that landmark judgment, as a basis on which to seek reimbursement for the hundreds of thousands they have each spent in this battle.
They have served writs on former sales committee chairman Arjun Samtani and member Tan Kah Gee, alleging that they were ‘key players in the process leading up to the commencement, facilitation, management and finalisation of the collective sale process’.
The minorities, in their claim, allege that Mr Samtani and Mr Tan had ‘pushed for a quick sale of the property for their personal benefit’, because both had bought additional units in Horizon Towers, at the start of the collective sale process, and were keen to profit from that.
Their statement of claim frequently cites the Court of Appeal judgment which had accepted, as facts of the case, that:
# Mr Samtani and Mr Tan had bought additional units in the development;
# The sales committee had received an alternative higher offer of $510 million from Vineyard Holdings, one day before HPL verbally indicated it was willing to purchase the development for $500 million; and
# The sales committee agreed to go ahead and sell Horizon Towers to HPL, in spite of a suggestion from one committee member that it seek the approval of the other consenting owners because property prices had shot up, because it was concerned that the deal would fall through if the other owners were consulted.
Justice Rajah, in his judgment, had also ruled that HPL and the estate’s majority owners should share the legal costs for the second High Court hearing, as well as the Court of Appeal hearing – and that the majority owners should bear the costs for the second STB. He also allowed two minority objectors who did not participate in the final appeal to be given 80 per cent of the costs incurred in the second STB and High Court hearings.
The minority owners are now seeking compensation for the sums not covered by Justice Rajah’s judgment. The three sets of owners are seeking between $117,000 to $370,000 in costs – making for a total claim of more than $800,000.
In his defence, filed with the High Court, Mr Samtani states repeatedly that he was not alone in driving the sale process. He said ‘each and every member of the SC (sales committee) played an equally important role’ and that he ‘did not have any special powers’ that could influence the committee’s decisions.
Mr Samtani also claimed that the committee ‘followed up on all expressions of offer’ for Horizon Towers and that it received no offer better than HPL’s at the relevant time. He said that, on the advice of the committee’s lawyers, Drew & Napier, the committee proceeded with the HPL offer.
As for the additional unit he purchased, Mr Samtani said that it ‘was not for investment, instead it was for use by his son’. He claimed he had disclosed the purchase of an additional unit to Drew, and was not advised by Drew that he had to announce it to the other consenting owners.
Mr Tan, who is represented by TSMP Law Corporation, has requested an extension of time to file his defence. Mr Samtani is represented by N Sreenivasan from Straits Law Practice.
Source: Business Times, 26 Jan 2010
A fresh lawsuit has just been filed over the failed en bloc sale of Horizon Towers – and a new chapter in the long-running saga is about to begin.
It’s a suit that’s set to be a closely watched one in Singapore, seen as a litmus test for the possible legal action that can be brought to bear against those involved in this, as well as all other, en bloc sales.
A group of Horizon Towers’ minority owners – those who had originally opposed the sale of the Leonie Hill development – are now suing some members of the original sales committee for their handling of the en bloc sale.
According to documents filed with the High Court, these minority owners are looking to reclaim close to $1 million in legal and administrative costs which they say they’ve incurred during the lengthy fight to keep their homes.
The sale of Horizon Towers – first tabled for $500 million to Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) in January 2007 – has been one of the most dramatic and long-drawn- out en bloc battles in Singapore’s history. The whole affair spanned more than two years and went back and forth between the Strata Titles Board (STB) and the High Court twice before finally being decided in the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal ruled in April last year that the deal could not go through because the development’s sales committee had failed to fulfil its duty on several counts.
And now, three sets of minority owners – represented by Kannan Ramesh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership – have cited that landmark judgment, as a basis on which to seek reimbursement for the hundreds of thousands they have each spent in this battle.
They have served writs on former sales committee chairman Arjun Samtani and member Tan Kah Gee, alleging that they were ‘key players in the process leading up to the commencement, facilitation, management and finalisation of the collective sale process’.
The minorities, in their claim, allege that Mr Samtani and Mr Tan had ‘pushed for a quick sale of the property for their personal benefit’, because both had bought additional units in Horizon Towers, at the start of the collective sale process, and were keen to profit from that.
Their statement of claim frequently cites the Court of Appeal judgment which had accepted, as facts of the case, that:
# Mr Samtani and Mr Tan had bought additional units in the development;
# The sales committee had received an alternative higher offer of $510 million from Vineyard Holdings, one day before HPL verbally indicated it was willing to purchase the development for $500 million; and
# The sales committee agreed to go ahead and sell Horizon Towers to HPL, in spite of a suggestion from one committee member that it seek the approval of the other consenting owners because property prices had shot up, because it was concerned that the deal would fall through if the other owners were consulted.
Justice Rajah, in his judgment, had also ruled that HPL and the estate’s majority owners should share the legal costs for the second High Court hearing, as well as the Court of Appeal hearing – and that the majority owners should bear the costs for the second STB. He also allowed two minority objectors who did not participate in the final appeal to be given 80 per cent of the costs incurred in the second STB and High Court hearings.
The minority owners are now seeking compensation for the sums not covered by Justice Rajah’s judgment. The three sets of owners are seeking between $117,000 to $370,000 in costs – making for a total claim of more than $800,000.
In his defence, filed with the High Court, Mr Samtani states repeatedly that he was not alone in driving the sale process. He said ‘each and every member of the SC (sales committee) played an equally important role’ and that he ‘did not have any special powers’ that could influence the committee’s decisions.
Mr Samtani also claimed that the committee ‘followed up on all expressions of offer’ for Horizon Towers and that it received no offer better than HPL’s at the relevant time. He said that, on the advice of the committee’s lawyers, Drew & Napier, the committee proceeded with the HPL offer.
As for the additional unit he purchased, Mr Samtani said that it ‘was not for investment, instead it was for use by his son’. He claimed he had disclosed the purchase of an additional unit to Drew, and was not advised by Drew that he had to announce it to the other consenting owners.
Mr Tan, who is represented by TSMP Law Corporation, has requested an extension of time to file his defence. Mr Samtani is represented by N Sreenivasan from Straits Law Practice.
Source: Business Times, 26 Jan 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Proposed law changes to protect clients in property deals
THE Law Ministry has tweaked proposed changes restricting lawyers' access to their clients' money in property deals and is going for a second round of public consultation before finalising changes.
The new suggestions will let conveyancing lawyers hold their clients' money, although a string of safeguards will be put in place to make it that much harder for them to run off with the funds.
In the first round of public consultations last August, the ministry had suggested that lawyers no longer be able to deposit conveyancing money into their regular clients' accounts and that the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) be the main entity to hold it.
But after feedback, the ministry tweaked the measures to allow clients to choose to leave money matters with their lawyers but to be kept in approved banks, or leave it in the hands of the SAL.
The moves are geared towards providing a final solution to the longstanding problem of lawyers running off with their clients' money. In the last six years, at least four rogue lawyers have fled with almost $20 million in funds meant for property transactions and held in client accounts in their law firms.
Conveyancing funds include the option to buy deposits, purchase and CPF money as well as the stamp duty payable on the deals. These typically come up to at least a six-digit sum for an average private property transaction.
Last year, about 33,000 private homes were sold. In addition, the HDB recorded some 28,441 flat resale deals, based on its last annual report ending March 2009.
Under the new proposals, law firms will have to open up a separate conveyancing account in approved banks which is separate from the client's account.
Money from such conveyancing accounts can be withdrawn only with the signature of the lawyers of both parties of the property transaction and the payout will be only via cashier's order.
In addition, the ministry will also appoint a party to set up a central signature repository of lawyers' signatures to allow the banks and the SAL to check the counter-signatures against the records.
Lawyers will be allowed to hold up to $5,000 of their client's money in their regular accounts, if their clients approve, to deal with last-minute payments and miscellaneous costs incurred in transactions.
For en bloc projects, they will be allowed to keep up to $2,000 per unit, subject to a $200,000 cap.
To give the changes bite, new legislation will be tabled in due course to subject those who breach the rules against keeping such conveyancing funds to fines of up to $50,000 or three years' jail.
The proposals are not expected to slow down the transactions, which typically take two to three months to complete.
A trial run involving SAL and the three local banks - DBS, OCBC and UOB - on 400 new property deals will be conducted in April and May to iron out any kinks in the system.
Source, Straits Times 18 January 2010
The new suggestions will let conveyancing lawyers hold their clients' money, although a string of safeguards will be put in place to make it that much harder for them to run off with the funds.
In the first round of public consultations last August, the ministry had suggested that lawyers no longer be able to deposit conveyancing money into their regular clients' accounts and that the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) be the main entity to hold it.
But after feedback, the ministry tweaked the measures to allow clients to choose to leave money matters with their lawyers but to be kept in approved banks, or leave it in the hands of the SAL.
The moves are geared towards providing a final solution to the longstanding problem of lawyers running off with their clients' money. In the last six years, at least four rogue lawyers have fled with almost $20 million in funds meant for property transactions and held in client accounts in their law firms.
Conveyancing funds include the option to buy deposits, purchase and CPF money as well as the stamp duty payable on the deals. These typically come up to at least a six-digit sum for an average private property transaction.
Last year, about 33,000 private homes were sold. In addition, the HDB recorded some 28,441 flat resale deals, based on its last annual report ending March 2009.
Under the new proposals, law firms will have to open up a separate conveyancing account in approved banks which is separate from the client's account.
Money from such conveyancing accounts can be withdrawn only with the signature of the lawyers of both parties of the property transaction and the payout will be only via cashier's order.
In addition, the ministry will also appoint a party to set up a central signature repository of lawyers' signatures to allow the banks and the SAL to check the counter-signatures against the records.
Lawyers will be allowed to hold up to $5,000 of their client's money in their regular accounts, if their clients approve, to deal with last-minute payments and miscellaneous costs incurred in transactions.
For en bloc projects, they will be allowed to keep up to $2,000 per unit, subject to a $200,000 cap.
To give the changes bite, new legislation will be tabled in due course to subject those who breach the rules against keeping such conveyancing funds to fines of up to $50,000 or three years' jail.
The proposals are not expected to slow down the transactions, which typically take two to three months to complete.
A trial run involving SAL and the three local banks - DBS, OCBC and UOB - on 400 new property deals will be conducted in April and May to iron out any kinks in the system.
Source, Straits Times 18 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)