The Joo Chiat resident, who opposed the collective selling of his apartment for claims of procedural irregularities and unfairness of distribution manner, had taken the case to the High Court.
At a hearing yesterday, Justice Andrew Ang, the presiding judge, questioned the legality of selling such a property en bloc.
Mr. Goh Teh Lee protested against the decision of the Strata Tiles Board (STB) in approving the sale of the property located in Koon Seng Road. The property had 24 apartments, known as the Koon Seng House, and nine pre-World War II houses.
The residents discussed the collective sale of the houses and apartments at a meeting in November 2006.
A single owner owns all the terrace houses while the apartments belong to several individuals who have a 99-year lease without any share in the land.
Justice Ang wondered in court yesterday whether a property like the one in dispute falls within the Land Titles (Strata) Act provisions. The act was the basis for setting situations wherein en bloc sales were possible.
The hearing was adjourned with the judge telling Cheak Kok Lim, the lawyer of the majority of the owners, to come back to court and give submissions regarding the issue. Mr. Goh did not have a lawyer representation.
Mr. Goh co-owns his apartment with his wife who consented with the decision of the majority of the residents, which is to sell the property.
He claimed that dividing the $21.12 million purchase price equally among the 33 units was unfair.
He also asserted that the collective sale agreement had discrepancies and cited dodgy signatures as an example.
He said that there was no transparency in the deal as the first meeting’s minutes were not distributed to all the owners. He also argued that the sale committee did not really deliberate much with regards to the appointment of a lawyer and a property agent for the deal–they were appointed on the same night as the committee itself.
Mr. Goh also alleged that false declarations were made by most of the owners to STB.
STB disagreed with Mr. Goh and ordered the sale to push through in December. Mr. Goh then made an appeal to the High Court in an attempt to reverse the decision.
In yesterday’s hearing, Justice Ang directly asked Mr. Goh if he objected just because he wanted more money or he really didn’t want to sell. Mr. Goh replied with the latter.
The judge warned Mr. Goh that if he loses the case, he would have to singlehandedly cover the legal costs; but if he wins, he and the majority could share the costs.
The judge also added that if there was no law allowing the en bloc sale, the owners could possibly be stuck with their old properties.