It has been more than four years since her husband and son died in a tragic fashion, but thinking about them still brings tears to her eyes.

‘It’s like stabbing a knife in my heart each time I talk and think about what happened,’ Madam Chen Tsui Yu, 56, said in Mandarin yesterday.

She was in the news last week when the Court of Appeal published a judgment to affirm that $4.8 million in proceeds from the sale of a Margate Road property should go to her.

The house off Mountbatten Road, registered under the name of her late Singaporean husband Charles Loo Chay Loo, was sold off by his elder brother, Mr Loo Chay Sit, in 2006.

Speaking over the phone from her home in San Mateo, California, the Taiwanese-born Madam Chen said that the court’s decision showed justice had been done.

She described the last four years as ‘a terrible, terrible journey’ and broke down several times during the half-hour interview.

On Sept 18, 2004, Mr Charles Loo allegedly killed their adopted son Benson, then 17, near their home in California. He then tried to kill himself but did not succeed.

While in jail awaiting trial, he committed suicide and died in May 2005 at the age of 51.

In 2006, Mr Loo Chay Sit secured a court declaration that his late brother had held the Margate Road property in trust for him, but that he had paid for it.

But the Court of Appeal threw out his ownership claim as he could not prove he had paid for the house with his own money.

Madam Chen argued that the property belonged to her husband’s estate since he held the title deed. The couple had lived in the house since their marriage in 1980 up until they left for the United States in 1993.

Madam Chen said a relative introduced her to Mr Loo in 1977 when he went to Taiwan for a holiday.

They started dating in 1978 and Mr Loo proposed to her in 1980.

Madam Chen, who was helping her father in his business as a property developer, then moved to Singapore and into 7 Margate Road.

She helped out in a travel agency where her husband was a majority shareholder, and in 1986 became a director.

In 1987, the couple, who were still childless after seven years of marriage, adopted Benson, the baby of an unwed mother, at the urging of Mr Loo’s mother.

They later found out that Benson had learning difficulties. He was diagnosed as ‘mildly retarded’ in a doctor’s report. They decided to move to the US where the education system was flexible enough to accommodate his learning difficulties, said Madam Chen.

Around that time, she also found out she was pregnant and later gave birth to a boy, Jackson. In 1993, the family moved to the US where four of Madam Chen’s siblings were living.

Her story, however, differs from what Mr Loo Chay Sit told the media and the police in 2005, shortly after his brother’s death.

He said he suspected the couple left Singapore because they were linked to a case involving signatures being forged for sums ‘amounting to millions’. He added that the family was puzzled about the couple’s decision to emigrate.

In media reports, the Loo family also said that the couple had marital problems as they often quarrelled over Benson. They also claimed that Mr Charles Loo was depressed and lonely in a foreign land.

Asked about those claims yesterday, Madam Chen said: ‘Our family has always been happy with no fights.’

She said that they went to church together every Sunday and that she and her husband took studio shots on their 20th wedding anniversary in 2000.

In court documents, she had submitted photos of the family, all of them smiling widely, in the US. ‘If we were unhappy, would we look like that?’ she said yesterday.

In San Francisco, Mr Charles Loo set up a noodle manufacturing business and later sold it for a profit. He also owned two homes in the luxurious Hillsborough area.

Then came the murder of Benson in 2004.

Mr Charles Loo was found in the bushes of Montara State Beach carpark, about 30 minutes from the couple’s home, lying face down with slash wounds on his wrists.

Benson was found dead nearby, with several stab wounds in his chest.

When asked about that tragic day, Madam Chen wept and said that she, too, had no idea how or why it happened.

She said the family had lunch together that day, as they always did, after Benson’s classes. Mr Loo was then supposed to drive the boy to the library where he usually did his homework.

‘I even told them to borrow a few simple English books for me,’ said Madam Chen. ‘There were no fights or quarrels, but they never came back.’

Her husband pleaded not guilty to murder charges. He was awaiting trial in jail when he was found unconscious in his cell. He was hanging from a noose made from plastic trash bags. He suffered severe brain damage and fell into a coma in hospital.

Asked whether Mr Loo was unhappy in the US, Madam Chen cried and was reluctant to say more, other than that her husband had insomnia.

She added that they kept in close contact with his family even after they had emigrated.

‘We would call home a couple of times a month and I always made sure the kids wrote cards to their grandparents on special occasions,’ she said.

In April 2005, while Mr Charles Loo was still in a coma, his elder brother started court action to stake his claim on the Margate Road house.

In March 2006, he secured a court declaration that the house was held in trust for him. He transferred the property to his name and sold it within six months for $4.8 million.

In February this year, the court threw out his claim and ruled in favour of his brother’s estate and Madam Chen.

The house has since been demolished and rebuilt into a new unit.

The Sunday Times could not contact Mr Loo Chay Sit, whose address was listed as a shop unit in an Ang Mo Kio housing block.

Madam Chen said she and Jackson are now living with her sister in San Mateo. She works part-time as an administrator.

Asked what she would do with the $4.8 million, she said she doubts she will get the money back. In court documents filed last year, Mr Loo Chay Sit had said that he had only $500,000 in cash left from the sale proceeds.

‘At least I managed to protect my husband’s assets; this is the least I could do,’ she said.

‘I just want to move on and have a peaceful life now.’

Source: Sunday Times, 18 Oct 2009

THE wife of a Singaporean who died in a United States jail will get to keep the $4.8million from a house sold by his elder brother but which she said was owned by her husband.

The Margate Road property at the centre of the ownership spat was registered in the younger Mr Charles Loo Chay Loo’s name when it was bought in 1979 but the elder Mr Loo Chay Sit and their parents had lived there since 1999.

Mr Loo Chay Sit, 58, sold the house located off Mountbatten Road in 2006 and kept the money.

The Court of Appeal in a judgment published yesterday threw out his ownership claim as he could not prove he had paid for the house with his own money.

Mr Loo had argued through lawyers from Rodyk & Davidson that his late brother had held the property in trust for him but he had paid for it.

His sister-in-law’s lawyers from Wee Swee Teow disputed this and argued that the property belonged to the dead man’s estate since he held the title deed.

The court affirmed the $4.8 million proceeds from the sale of the house should go to Madam Chen Tsui Yu, 56.

Mr Charles Loo committed suicide in May 2005, at the age of 51, eight months after he killed his adopted son Benson near their home in California.

He had lived in the Margate Road house since marrying the Taiwan-born Madam Chen in 1980, up until the couple left for the US in 1993 with Benson, then aged six.

They opted to settle in the US to provide for the special needs of Benson, who had learning difficulties, according to Madam Chen.

Charged with Benson’s murder and an earlier suicide attempt in September 2004, Mr Charles Loo made a second attempt in February 2005 while in prison, fell into a coma and died that May.

According to Madam Chen, her husband had suffered from depression and wanted to kill himself and Benson as he worried the son would be a burden to her.

With Mr Charles Loo dead, the court turned to payment receipts, traced back to the time the Margate Road house was bought, to help decide who the rightful owner was. In the end, the judgment turned on the title deed as neither his widow nor his brother was able to show they had paid for the property.

Madam Chen could not produce enough evidence to show all the funds paid out to buy the house. For instance, she could not account for about $90,000 of the purchase money of $195,000.

She was unable to prove on balance that her late husband had paid for the property. But ‘not proved’ does not mean ‘disproved’, wrote Justice Andrew Phang in the court’s grounds of decision.

The court recognised that some of the documents had been lost over time and she was unable to produce them.

‘The finding that (Madam Chen) had not proved that Loo Chay Loo had paid for the property simply means that there was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether he had paid,’ said the judge.

But the title to the house was registered in his name and the case turned in his estate’s favour on this.

The court held Mr Loo Chay Sit had failed to establish the exception that there was a trust, to the rule that accords the property title to the registered owner.

Source: Straits Times, 16 Oct 2009

Lawsuit between condo residents and firm brings issue to fore

A CIVIL suit before the courts in Singapore has set a landmark poser.

The issue: Does the highest court in the land have the powers to reopen and set aside its own judgments?

It pitted one top lawyer against another in the High Court, in a debate behind closed doors before Justice Choo Han Teck on Wednesday.

He has reserved judgment.

The issue began in 2005, when a three-judge panel in the Court of Appeal ruled in a 2-1 decision that residents of Grange Heights condominium could use an access path leading to their development.

The path runs through a Grange Road property owned by Lee Tat Development.

In 2007, when Grange Heights went to the High Court to ask for a ruling on its building of a proper road, the court said it saw no need to do this, as the matter was bound by the 2005 ruling.

Lee Tat appealed. A hearing followed and each side subsequently presented four sets of submissions, at the end of which the court reserved judgment.

Then last December, the Court of Appeal ruled that the condominium’s right of access no longer existed. Lee Tat thus won the right to close off the access road.

Then came Grange Heights’ move. Its condominium management committee pored over the grounds of the judgment and hired lawyers from Rajah & Tann led by Senior Counsel Sundaresh Menon to apply to the Appeals Court to review and set aside its decision.

But for such a move to proceed, it had to be first established whether the Court of Appeal had the powers provided by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, or under its own inherent jurisdiction, to reopen a case it had already heard and set aside the decision.

Also at issue was whether the Appeals Court could reconstitute itself to reconsider or rehear matters arising from the judgment.

In other words, how final are the decisions made in the highest court of the land?

The High Court hearing was thus convened this week to settle the matter of the powers of the court.

Senior Counsel Tan Cheng Han, assisted by lawyers from Arfat Selvam & Partners, represented the defendants Lee Tat in the hearing.

In submissions filed, they argued that the powers of the court were defined by the legislation and that it had no statutory powers to rehear its own case.

Among other things, they added that the Appeals Court here does not have as wide-ranging powers as do the courts in England, and that it operates within the scope conferred by the Singapore Parliament.

Grange Heights’ lawyers countered in their submissions that the Appeals Court, being the court of last resort, had the power to rehear a case and to set aside its decision.

They argued that the court was being asked to look at the process by which the decision was reached and not assess the substantive merits of the decision itself.

There was a public interest in the issue as it affected the legal rights of litigants generally.

—————————————————
ABOUT THE CASE
FOR more than 30 years, Madam Ching Mun Fong, who owns and runs Lee Tat Development, has fought – and failed – to get the courts to close off an access road running through her Grange Road property to the adjoining Grange Heights condominium site.

But last year, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision that a previous Appeals Court made three years ago and granted Madam Ching her wish.

Her lawyer Ernest Balasubramaniam had argued before the court that the issue of right of way in the light of changed circumstances had not been previously addressed.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Judges of Appeal V. K. Rajah and Andrew Phang, found that circumstances had changed and that the access road was neither needed nor an issue anymore.

Residents of Grange Heights have two other access points – at St Thomas Walk and River Valley Grove.

The management council of the Grange Heights Condominium now wants the Court of Appeal to reopen and rehear the case, but before the court can consider doing so, the High Court has to first establish whether it has the powers to do so.

Source: Straits Times, 10 Oct 2009

A SPAT between two developers about the re-routing of an access road has gone all the way to the Court of Appeal.

Both Pacific Rover and Yickvi Realty have condominium projects on adjoining parcels of land off Newton Road. But Yickvi had a right-of-way access road to its new 11-storey property that cut through Pacific Rover’s land.

Pacific Rover, which had received planning permission to build two 30-storey residential units, wanted to optimise land usage and shift part of the access road nearer to the property’s boundary. Its condominium, called Trilight, is due to be completed in April 2011.

Yickvi initially agreed to the request, provided the subterranean electric cables, pipes and other service installations beneath the road were shifted in line with the newly adjusted road.

But talks broke down last year and the case went to the High Court, which ruled Yickvi could not object to the road shift as it would not cause a major inconvenience to the occupants of its building.

Yickvi, through lawyers from Rajah & Tann, appealed to the highest court, which agreed with the earlier ruling but ordered Pacific Rover to make sure Yickvi had immediate access, whenever reasonably required, to maintain and repair the cables running under the original route.

The Court of Appeal made clear the inconvenience caused by the realignment of the access road was not the real issue.

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, in delivering the grounds on the court’s behalf, said: ‘First, because of the scarcity of land in Singapore, land should be allowed to be developed to its optimal potential as permitted by planning law and the claimant suffers no injury or inconvenience as a result.’

He added that allowing the road shift would prevent further suits taking place and this was a second public benefit.

Lawyers from Rodyk & Davidson, acting for Pacific Rovers, said the judgment was a landmark move as past cases showed a right-of-way cannot be changed without the consent of the party who held that right.

Lawyer Ling Tien Wah said the court showed in this case that, in certain circumstances, the change could go ahead.

‘The court held the owner of the right could not stop the other party from realigning the right-of-way, provided it was advantageous to both parties,’ he said.

—————————————————————
DEVELOP LAND OPTIMALLY

‘Because of the scarcity of land in Singapore, land should be allowed to be developed to its optimal potential as permitted by planning law and the claimant suffers no injury or inconvenience as a result.’ – Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong

Source: Straits Times, 29 Sep 2009

THE lid has come off on how much lawyers should charge in property deals.

The Law Society yesterday said it will remove a controversial set of fee guidelines for conveyancing lawyers that was implemented six years ago.

A statement issued yesterday by the society, which represents all practising lawyers in Singapore, said lawyers should be free to negotiate fees with their clients. The removal of these guidelines will take effect from Oct 1 and will apply to all property deals signed after that.

The Law Society said the guidelines were meant as a ‘transitional measure’ and, after an ongoing review, its council decided to scrap them. Its statement also reminded lawyers that they have a ‘fundamental ethical obligation’ not to overcharge.

Back in 2003, the Law Society removed a fixed-fee structure that put a cap on what lawyers could charge their clients for property deals.

Instead, it put in place fee guidelines because many firms were undercutting one another by offering rock-bottom fees in order to secure clients.

The society felt then that the low fees, combined with a heavy case load, would lead to lawyers cutting corners and making mistakes, leaving the legal profession open to more complaints.

However, the guidelines, which pegged a ‘fair and reasonable’ fee at about 0.4 per cent of a property’s purchase price, also meant that lawyers’ conveyancing fees ended up being slashed by half.

This caused much unhappiness in the industry and led to some lawyers quitting conveyancing work for areas of law that were better paying.

The guidelines also ran into some problems with the Consumers Association of Singapore for being anti-competitive, although the Law Society is exempted from such laws because it is a regulatory body.

Property experts contacted yesterday said they do not foresee any impact of this change on the industry. They said consumers were now familiar with what was considered a reasonable fee, so the guidelines were now irrelevant.

Mr Mohamed Ismail, chief executive of real estate firm PropNex, said: ‘Removing the guidelines will have little consequence on the market, because the market has already settled down with a very competitive and low cost for conveyancing.

‘There are already a few specialised firms that do conveyancing in big volumes, thus enjoying relatively good economies of scale and therefore cost becomes low.’

HSR Property group executive director Eric Cheng said there would be little impact as legal fees were only a ‘very small fraction of the entire purchase price’.

Consumers are the ones who will benefit from removal of the guidelines, he added. ‘This gives consumers free play when it comes to services. If they pay more, they can expect better services. Lawyers who charge more must give better services.’

The current conveyancing fee for a $1 million property is about $4,000. Most buyers now do not pay lawyers directly for property transactions as legal fees are subsidised by banks to attract clients to take up their property loans.

Lawyer Amolat Singh said lawyers used to charge lower than the guidelines stipulated anyway. ‘We have to lower our fees or lose business.’

Source, Straits Times 23 Sep 2009

A BUSINESSMAN who lost his investment in a property deal has sued the lawyer involved in the deal to get back $850,000.

Mr Satinder Singh Garcha said he was talked into investing $1 million and found after a week that only $50,000 was left.

In the lawsuit, which opened in the High Court yesterday, he alleged that the lawyer in question, Mr Uthayasurian Sidambaram, was instrumental in the loss of that money.

He claimed that Mr Uthayasurian was grossly negligent and had failed to advise him of the conflicts of interest in the case.

The lawyer, who had 18 years’ experience, was suspended from practising for a year by a Court of Three Judges in May, in disciplinary proceedings over the same case.

In its written judgment, the court warned lawyers to avoid the pitfalls of situations in which they represent multiple clients in the same case.

Mr Uthayasurian had acted for multiple parties involved in a project to build on a 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 complained to the Law Society and also started a civil suit against Mr Uthayasurian to get back his investment.

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

He claims that Mr Uthayasurian 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.

He contended that Mr Uthayasurian transferred the money on Mr Ang’s instructions without telling him.

In fact, he claims that the lawyer was involved in a conspiracy with Mr Ang to defraud him of the money.

Mr Uthayasurian denies he and Mr Ang were in collusion to defraud Mr Singh, as they had separate roles in the project. He said Mr Singh was a seasoned businessman who was probably more aware of the risks of getting into such a project than he was.

The lawyer also disputes Mr Singh’s claim that he was unaware of Mr Ang’s status. He asserts that Mr Singh contributed to his own loss by choosing to authorise Mr Ang to disburse the money despite knowing he was bankrupt.

Mr Singh is represented by Mr Andre Maniam, while Mr Uthayasurian is represented by Mr N. Sreenivasan.

Source: Straits Times, 15 Sep 2009

Where do you see this?

In articles, research reports, property websites and legal documents related to property.

What does this mean?

A caveat is a legal document lodged by a person who claims an interest in a property.

For instance, an intending purchaser who has paid a certain percentage of the purchase price to a property owner can lodge a caveat to indicate that he has an interest in the property.

Lodging of caveats is voluntary and there can be a time lag between the purchase date and the lodgement of the caveat.

Why is it important?

It prevents another person from staking a claim on the same property.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority uses caveats to compute its property price indices. Its website has information on private home deals transacted with caveats lodged. Buyers can check the caveats to get an idea of where prices are headed or the latest prices at a development.

So you want to use the term. Just say…

‘I just saw a caveat lodged for a unit at my condo. It’s 20 per cent higher than what I paid last year. I will wait for the market to rise further before I cash out of this investment property.’

Source: Sunday Times, 6 Sep 2009

PROPERTY developers, by virtue of their particular trade, have a habit of getting creative in marketing campaigns. In recent, fairly typical instances, two property companies advertised projects as being near unconfirmed locations of future MRT stations. The real estate business knows private property by train stations is highly valued, even if buyers are car owners. Being flexible with the truth in advertising has no place in an industry that meets a prime social goal besides being a plank of the economy.

Following a report carried in this newspaper, the two firms stopped using misleading transport information as a selling point. This is all to the good, particularly after a Land Transport Authority (LTA) spokesman dismissed the advertised claims as ‘wild guesses’. Putting out unconfirmed MRT site information is not the only ploy resorted to. It has become a common – and even acceptable – industry practice for advertised properties to be depicted as being ensconced in verdant greenery when in reality, the ‘greenery’ is man-made infrastructure such as busy thoroughfares and tall buildings. Schematic diagrams frequently show schools, shopping malls, eating places and other amenities to be closer than they are. ‘Walking distance’ and ‘minutes away’ are relative, so advertisers get away with it.

It is easy to explain why home buyers can be taken in by hype and misrepresentation. In the first half of the year, more than 7,000 privates home were sold, exceeding the 4,264 units sold last year. Lower interest rates, improving consumer sentiment and the fear of being priced out are feeding the froth.

The onus is on buyers to do their homework. This should exceed what is promised in ads, scale models and dressed-up showflats. In the case of proposed MRT locations, buyers should check or verify the information on LTA’s website and published media sources. Better still, do a reconnaissance of the property itself.

The buyer naivete shown underscores an oddity of the national psyche. Singaporeans have implicit trust in the integrity of the authorities (and rightly so). By extension, they tend to be fairly trusting of big commercial entities – banks, airlines, developers being examples. They accept sales information at face value. Property buyers who do not make thorough checks get what they deserve. The worst kind of information one is bombarded with is not brazen untruths, but untruths cloaked in a modicum of truth. If developers pull this stunt, the operative phrase for buyers is caveat emptor.

Source: Straits Times, 15 Aug 2009

THREE of the original seven feuding families on the now infamous Everitt Road have moved out and since then life has been more peaceful.

The Chan family at 130B, who are at the centre of the dispute, says that calm has returned somewhat.

‘It’s quiet. They dare not rebut or gang up any more,’ said Madam Chua Gek Eng, 71, the mother of Dr Chan Soo Yin, 47.

In the past three years, their immediate neighbours – the Tan family and the Chua family – sold their houses, citing harassment as the reason.

The Gan family, right across from the Chans at 136C, have relocated to Shanghai.

Those left are the other Chua family in 136L, the Loh family in 136B, the Ee family in 136F and Gan’s parents in 136E.

But some of them contend the angst is far from over.

Mr Loh Ah Wee, 74, said that the shouting has not stopped.

‘They don’t dare throw things at us any more,’ he said in Mandarin. ‘But they still curse us when we walk past their house. I still sneak out of my back door to avoid them.’

‘It’s been so long, we are used to it. They will never change,’ he added, sighing.

Another family member, who did not want to be named, said that the Chans still hurl abuse at their children, calling them things like bastard son.

‘They also taunt us with bags full of something or other, as if to throw them at us. But we just ignore them,’ he said.

A Straits Times check found that the Chans’ bright spotlights – a bone of contention with neighbours because they were sometimes left on all night – are still there.

Also yesterday, Dr Chan was seen rushing out of her house with a knotted-up plastic bag full of a brown substance as her neighbour’s van drove past.

She dropped the bag on the side of the road when she realised she had been spotted.

When asked if it was true that verbal abuse still went on, she screamed, referring to a particular neighbour: ‘She shouted vulgarities at us and now she wants to turn things on us. This is really rich coming from her.’

Mr Chris Koh, a director at Dennis Wee Properties, said the coverage that the area has received due to the feuding residents cannot be good for property prices there.

The Straits Times understands that the former neighbours sold their properties for between $1million and $1.4 million.

‘This kind of negative publicity definitely has an effect. Some people will be wary of buying a property there for sure,’ Mr Koh said.

However, he added that the value would depreciate only slightly. ‘People buy property based on land value. They will consider neighbours as a factor, but in the end if the price is right, it will go.’

—————————————————
About the spat

1993: The Everitt Road dispute reportedly started over parking space, and escalated into a tit-for-tat war involving chains, video cameras and allegations of abuse on both sides.

2002: The quarrel drew media notice when seven families sought help from MP Chan Soo Sen.

But mediation efforts failed to resolve the conflict.

The escalating quarrels drew wide interest, with the neighbourhood attracting curious observers from outside the area.

A slew of police reports and court complaints followed.

2004: In July, Mr Chan Cheng Khoon was fined $4,000 for insulting Madam Teo Suan Moy and another neighbour, Ms Bency Chua.

2005: In November, Mr Chan was again fined for insulting another neighbour.

2006: In February, MrChan was fined the maximum $2,000 for harassing Mr Loh Beng Lee, who lived diagonally across from his house.

His 47-year-old daughter, Dr Chan Soo Yin, was fined $2,000 in January for insulting a neighbour.

2009: Dr Chan said she filed 25 magistrates’ complaints against various neighbours between

Both parties in dispute claim victory of sorts after court ruling

A NEIGHBOURHOOD feud that has been festering in Everitt Road for 16 years had a High Court conclusion yesterday that could finally draw a line under their increasingly bitter dispute.

The conflict, which has also involved several other people, dozens of legal complaints and several court appearances, has blighted life in the Joo Chiat street since 1993.

Even the outcome of yesterday’s court case was disputed, with two women claiming to have won a victory of sorts.

Madam Tan Bee Hua had been fined $500 in April for hurling vulgarities at Dr Chan Soo Yin, but had the penalty set aside yesterday on condition that she keeps a clean record for the next 12months.

Madam Tan, 51, was given a conditional discharge – a rare move by the High Court – after arguing that she was provoked and the offence was minor.

Her lawyer Ram Goswami also told the appeal hearing before Justice Choo Han Teck that she was unlikely to repeat the offence.

Madam Tan had been convicted and fined by a magistrate’s court in April for hurling vulgarities at Dr Chan in Everitt Road at about 11pm in August 2003.

At the time, she was living in nearby Teng Tong Road and had cycled to Dr Chan’s house.

Dr Chan had cross-appealed and argued in person yesterday for a heavier deterrent fine against Madam Tan, but left empty-handed after Justice Choo threw out her suit.

Yet Dr Chan, who is an educator, said she was happy with the appeal outcome, noting that the complaints against Madam Tan and the others who hired lawyers would have cost them legal fees several times the fine payable.

Madam Tan, a businesswoman, said she fought the case all the way to the High Court ‘to protect her dignity’ and received support from friends for her legal fees. ‘I feel very happy and relaxed today,’ said the single mother of three, who added that the ongoing feud had led to bouts of depression and many sleepless nights.

Yesterday’s case marked the end of a slew of disputes that started in 1993 and eventually led the Chans to lodge about 25 complaints against various neighbours, including the Loh, Chua and Gan families.

The Chan family consists of retiree Chan Cheng Khoon, 74; his wife Chua Gek Eng, 71; and their daughter, educator Chan Soo Yin, 47.

Seven families have been engaged in a long-running conflict with the Chans which has drawn widespread media attention over the years. Three of the families have since moved out.

The dispute began over a parking space but soon escalated into a tit-for-tat turf war involving chains, video cameras and allegations of abuse on both sides.

The spats are believed to have been one factor in the establishment of the neighbourhood courts scheme set up last year to sort out rows, with Justices of the Peace presiding.

Dr Chan said she filed 25 magistrate’s complaints against her neighbours between 2005 and 2006, but only one was successful. That was the subject of yesterday’s appeal.

She filed six complaints against Madam Tan and others against the Gans, the Lohs and the Chuas. All were either resolved though mediation or settled.

Dr Chan and her father were also the subject of complaints and were hauled to court a number of times between 2004 and 2006 for insulting and harassing their neighbours.

Mr Chan was fined three times and Dr Chan once – racking up total fines of $10,000.

However. she was far from dispirited after yesterday’s setback: ‘The experience has been a wonderful learning journey. I can now actually give advice on what to do in neighbourhood quarrels.’

Madam Tan, meanwhile, has moved. She left the area in May 2006 to get ‘peace of mind’ and now lives in Balestier Road.

Source: Straits Times, 15 Aug 2009