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

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

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

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

A PRIVATE investigator is suing five lawyers for professional negligence over the sale of his house in 2002.

Mr Simon Suppiah Sunmugam, 62, alleged that they had mistakenly paid property agency ERA $28,000 as a commission.

He said in his affidavit that he found the buyer of the property. The agency, therefore, did not deserve any payment.

The lawyers he is suing are Ms Amarjit Kour, Mr Gregory Tang Wee Thiang, Ms Belinda Ang Choo Poh and Mr Peter Cuthbert Low of the now-defunct firm Peter Low Tang & Belinda Ang. The firm represented his ex-wife Nee Shyam Huey in their May 1996 divorce.

The fifth lawyer he is suing is Mr Andrew John Hanam, who acted for him in the divorce.

The defence of the four lawyers is that they were hired by Madam Nee and not by Mr Suppiah, and thus owed him no professional obligation.

Mr Hanam is denying responsibility on the grounds that the sale of the Suppiahs’ matrimonial home after the divorce was arranged by the other lawyers, so Mr Suppiah should refer to them to recover his losses.

Court documents showed that when Mr Suppiah defaulted in the divorce settlement, Madam Nee obtained a court order to sell the matrimonial home in Punggol.

She found a buyer for $1.6 million but Mr Suppiah objected because the price was too low. He then found a neighbour who was willing to pay $1.75 million.

He was expecting his share of the sales proceeds to reach $240,000, but received only $212,000 in July 2002.

When he discovered that a commission of $28,000 had been paid to the housing agent, he instructed Mr Hanam to write to the other lawyers to withhold payment. But it was too late.

At the opening of the civil suit yesterday, Mr Suppiah took the stand to tell his lawyer Alain A. Johns that despite the sale-and-purchase agreement, which did not authorise payment of the housing agent’s commission, the five lawyers failed to protect his interest.

The hearing will continue next year.

Source: Straits Times, 12 Nov 2009

FAILING to sign the option-to-purchase form may not be enough to let one pull out of a property deal.

This is especially so if the buyer’s deposit has been banked in and there are e-mail exchanges to show that a deal had been agreed upon, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

The case in point – the sale of an apartment in an Upper Serangoon condominium in May 2007.

E-mail messages were exchanged indicating that a price of $506,000 had been agreed upon and later, the 1 per cent option fee was paid and banked in.

About a week later, the seller tried to back out.

His lawyer, Mr Leslie Netto, argued that the seller was obliged to go ahead with the deal only after the seller had signed and issued the option to purchase. But the Appeals Court held that this was a ‘mere formality’ as all the conditions needed for a binding written contract had already been fulfilled in this case.

The buyer’s deposit had been banked in and the exchange of e-mail messages between both parties identified them and the property clearly. They showed that the parties had agreed on the price and the terms to close the deal.

Legally, all three Ps – parties, property and price – and the T – terms of the option to purchase – had been met and the Appeals Court said this was enough to satisfy the criteria for a binding written contract.

In law, such property deals have to be made in writing.

The judgment released last week also showed the court was prepared to recognise e-mail messages to transact a property deal.

‘The requirement of a signature had also been satisfied on the facts of the present case,’ said Justice Andrew Phang, who wrote the apex court’s 23-page grounds of judgment.

Another reason cited for enforcing the contract, or recognising the deal, in this case was the exchange of money that had taken place.

The judgment is a timely one, said lawyers and property dealers, as it makes clear that one party cannot pull out at the last minute should a better offer arise. Signing the option letter is not the point of no return in such deals.

Said Drew & Napier’s Mr Adrian Tan: ‘This is a problem that has surfaced in the last few years ever since the property boom started.’

Money has changed hands and then the parties try to get out of the deal by not signing the option forms when they see prices rise. This will not work any more, he said.

‘The Court of Appeal has conclusively established the law in this area. All home owners and property agents should take note.’

Mr Chris Koh, director of Dennis Wee Properties, said banking in the option fee of $5,060 in this case amounted to acceptance of the deal.

His advice: ‘If you are not sure of wanting to sell, then don’t accept the cheque. You cannot accept the cheque and then say you don’t want to sell.’

————————————————
About the case

WHEN a couple who had been renting a unit in Rio Vista condominium in Upper Serangoon learnt that a fourth-floor unit was being sold in 2007, they offered to pay $506,000 for it.

Mr Chiranjeev Singh and his wife then gave property agent Helene Ong a cheque for 1 per cent of the purchase price, which she banked into seller Joseph Mathew’s bank account here, as instructed.

Mr Mathew was then working in India.

Four key e-mail exchanges ensued – three from Ms Ong to Mr Mathew, and one from him indicating acceptance of the deal.

But about a week later, he e-mailed Ms Ong, rejecting the offer and declining to sign the option-to-purchase form she had sent him.

Mr Mathew returned here on May 26, 2007, and went into talks with Mr Singh about the deal.

The talks failed and lawyer Boo Moh Cheh took the case to court for Mr Singh.

High Court Judge Andrew Ang ordered Mr Mathew to sign the option-to-purchase form, failing which the Supreme Court Registrar would exercise its power to sign it on his behalf.

Mr Mathew appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his suit and ordered him to pay costs.

His unit, which eventually went at the $506,000 price first agreed upon, was understood to be worth $670,000 some 15 months later.

Source: Straits Times, 10 Nov 2009

TWO brothers are set to battle it out in court over whether a 2004 or 2009 will should be recognised following their mother’s death in August.

At stake is Madam Lim Lie Hoa’s substantial estate, worth more than $25 million, including property and assets in Singapore and Indonesia.

The matriarch’s second son, Mr Ong Siauw Ping, 50, through Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, filed court papers last week seeking to affirm he is the sole executor of a will Madam Lim signed on July 9. The will, witnessed by lawyers Chan Wai Mun and Glenn Knight, is understood to have bequeathed varying portions of her estate to all three sons.

But youngest son Elton, 34, gave court notice through Senior Counsel Michael Khoo on Monday to contest this.

Madam Lim, 74, is said to have made a will in 2004 that provides for the two younger brothers and excludes eldest sibling Siauw Tjoan, 52, who is estranged from her and based in Kuala Lumpur.

Siauw Tjoan is also estranged from wife Jane Rebecca Ong, who was earlier embroiled in an 18-year-suit with Madam Lim over her share of the estate.

Elton wants the court to recognise the 2004 will as the valid one and he takes issue with the circumstances in which the 2009 will was signed. He had tried unsuccessfully to get joint management of his mother’s estate earlier this year by having the High Court declare her of unsound mind.

He was concerned about her mental condition following surgery and two hospital stays, and had a psychiatrist’s report about her being incapacitated.

Madam Lim had been ill with a brain tumour since July last year.

The showdown in court is the latest episode in the increasingly strained relationship of the two brothers.

Last month, Elton accused Siauw Ping of keeping their mother’s death under wraps. He was not informed of her death and missed the funeral. But Siauw Ping said on Thursday that there was a three- day wake and church service before their mother was cremated. It was no hushed- up event, he said.

He added that the entire proceedings were organised by Madam Lim’s younger surviving sister and Indonesian relatives when news of her death was conveyed by the family’s maid here. He said: ‘I was away in Australia at the time and returned here on being told by the maid that my mother had passed away.’

Explaining why a death notice was not placed, he added: ‘I was in a state of shock and not familiar with funeral arrangements and took the advice of my aunt in most matters concerning the funeral of my mother.’

The case is due to be brought up in the High Court next month.

Source: Straits Times, 7 Nov 2009

A BUSINESSMAN who lost his investment in a property deal and sued the lawyer involved managed to obtain $300,000 out of the $1 million invested.

Mr Satinder Singh Garcha said he was talked into investing the sum and claimed that his lawyer S. Uthayasurian, who is also known as Mr Surian, was instrumental in the loss of that money.

Among other things, Mr Singh claimed the lawyer did not tell him that the middleman involved in the deal was an undischarged bankrupt. But Judicial Commissioner Quentin Loh, who released his judgment on Monday, said Mr Singh knew this all along.

Mr Uthayasurian, who has 18 years of legal experience, has already been suspended from practising for a year by a Court of Three Judges in May, in disciplinary proceedings over the same case.

He had acted for multiple parties involved in a property development project on a 117,000 sq ft plot of land in Tanglin Hill owned by the Brunei government.

Mr Singh not only put in the money in May 2006 but also authorised an undischarged bankrupt, Mr Louis Ang, to disburse the funds.

A week later, he found that most of the money had gone to other parts of the project and legal costs.

Mr Singh, represented by WongPartnership lawyers, sued Mr Surian to get back his investment.

Mr Surian, who was paid legal fees of $100,000 out of the investment, refunded the payment made to him, but Mr Singh wanted the rest of his money back.

He claimed that Mr Surian did not alert him to Mr Ang’s status as a bankrupt, nor advise him about the risks of giving a bankrupt ‘unfettered authority’ to handle money.

But Mr Surian’s lawyer N. Sreenivasan countered that Mr Singh knew Mr Ang was an undischarged bankrupt and that, being an experienced businessman, was aware of the risks involved, such as having to forgo any claim against a bankrupt should anything go wrong.

Judicial Commissioner Loh, in his 34-page judgment, agreed with the defence.

He added that Mr Surian never thought of bringing up Mr Ang’s bankruptcy status with Mr Singh because Mr Ang had been open about it and had raised it in various meetings with relevant parties which included Mr Singh.

Judicial Commissioner Loh said Mr Singh was ’someone who was willing to shape his evidence, in not insignificant areas, to suit his case’.

He said Mr Singh would still have participated in the project even if he knew Mr Ang was a bankrupt as he was keen to develop long-term ties with the Brunei royal family and government.

The judge held that Mr Surian was not liable for the $550,000 paid to two other parties from the funds provided by Mr Singh. It was clear that money was meant for the intended recipients.

But the lawyer was liable for $300,000 paid to one Mr Lim Beng Huat, who was Mr Ang’s driver.

The judge made it clear that Mr Surian had been negligent in making the payout to the driver without probing the reasons or checking with Mr Singh, and this led to the loss.

Mr Singh, who was described as ‘extremely intelligent, very sharp and very quick’ by the judge, came from the United States to settle in Singapore several years ago.

The businessman is also an avid polo player who captained the Singapore team to a silver medal in the 2007 SEA Games.

Source: Straits Times, 4 Nov 2009

Man in civil claim also under criminal probe for reported fraud

AN ACCOUNTS clerk was ordered to return some $2.2 million that he took over 18 months from a condominium management office, where he had worked since May 2003.

Mr Chew Swee Siong, 30, did not show up in court to contest the High Court claim brought by the West Bay Condominium management committee. He was served with court papers last month.

The police told The Straits Times yesterday that Mr Chew is also under criminal investigation for the reported fraud.

On Thursday, Assistant Registrar Leong Weng Tat ordered Mr Chew to pay up after having heard earlier from West Bay’s lawyer, Mr Leslie Netto, in the condo’s civil claim.

Mr Chew was also ordered to pay damages and costs to be assessed later. It is believed he had gambling debts.

According to court documents filed, Mr Chew’s duties at the condo included taking charge of all cheque books, fixed deposit receipts and other documents such as bank statements, payment vouchers and correspondence files in relation to the accounts of the condo management.

As the sole employee in charge of the condo’s finance accounts, he was also responsible for collecting, recording and banking all funds received by the condo.

He had the task of preparing the accounts in the annual audits for the annual general meetings, as well as updating and maintaining accounting records.

The 15-year-old condo in West Coast Crescent, in Pasir Panjang, has 318 units. According to the management committee chairman, Mr Chew had cleaned out the condo’s management and sinking funds meant for upgrading, repair and maintenance, and paying contractors for work done.

The matter came to light in December 2007 after a new management committee took over. The chairman, Mr Jaffar Hassan, said yesterday: ‘When we took over, there was just $1,200 left in the bank account for the condominium’s upkeep.’

Mr Jaffar’s team hired forensic accountants to trace how the money was taken in the 18-month period from June 2006. A police report was also lodged.

Among other things, it emerged that Mr Chew opened an additional bank account in the condo’s name without getting authorisation from the committee.

According to court documents filed, he forged signatures to make cheque payments to himself. Cheques were meant to be signed by two office-bearers of the management committee.

Mr Jaffar said the committee was saddled with unpaid bills for cleaners, security guards and other contractors amounting to about $300,000.

There was also an unusable lift that needed $21,000 to repair.

Mr Jaffar said a general meeting was called and residents agreed to each contribute six instalments totalling $2,400. The contributions allowed the condo to continue with its upkeep.

He said: ‘We had to move this at a very difficult time as there was a turnaround with an economic downturn.

‘I hope the lessons learnt at West Bay will serve to make others more aware in the management of their estates.’

Source: Straits Times, 31 Oct 2009

The High Court on Thursday dismissed Ideal Accommodation’s appeal against a court order to pay Cove Development rental arrears amounting to over $872,000.

The sum represents approximately two months of rental arrears for units at Grangeford Apartments which were leased to Ideal.

Earlier this year, Ideal was charged with illegally renting out 171 units of Grangeford Apartments – 141 of which had been divided into 600 sub-units, violating the Planning Act.

Cove Development terminated its lease with Ideal Accommodation to regain possession of the apartments in June this year.

Source: Channel News Asia, 30 Oct 2009