mr funny
16-04-07, 08:21
April 16, 2007
Decade-old family feud over $100m property back in court
Relatives fighting one man who is 'blocking' efforts to sell Killiney Road property
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
A 10-YEAR family feud over a prime plot of land in Killiney Road will begin to unfold in court today, with the stakes estimated to be as high as $100 million.
The fight is between Mr Chiam Heng Hsien - who owns a 10 per cent share of the land - and his relatives.
Mr Chiam, who runs the family-owned Mitre Hotel lodging house located at the site, has managed to block their efforts to sell the plot for the past 10 years.
The 40,000 sq ft site - half the size of a football field - was set a $72 million price tag in court a decade ago, but the sale could top $100 million in today's market, given its location just off Orchard Road.
The property was rent-controlled and the hotel proprietors had to pay only $660 a month from 1955 to 2001 - when rent control was abolished.
The family tussle began in 1996 when Mr Chiam, now 61, fought off a move to sell.
His cousin Chiam Heng Luan, in his 90s, and the latter's son Chiam Ai Thong had then sought a court order to let the sale go ahead.
The High Court allowed the sale, but refused to decree that it could be sold with vacant possession.
This was because the hotel still had a rent control tenancy and was not a party to the proceedings.
Justice Kan Ting Chiu then held that the would-be sellers could either negotiate with the hotel owners to vacate the property or take court action to get possession.
Mr Chiam Heng Hsien had then reportedly asked for $21 million to move out and allow the sale.
He was rebuffed and the sale plans were derailed, but a series of legal battles followed.
The hotel ceased to operate in 2002 and is now being run as a lodging house.
Mr Chiam Heng Hsien's relatives, who collectively own more than 80 per cent of the site, are asking the court to declare that the business managing the lodging house is only a tenant and that they have the right to terminate the tenancy.
But Mr Chiam Heng Hsien is arguing that the interests of a partnership set up in the 1940s to run the hotel override the pact between the co-owners to sell the property.
He contends that the partnership has a contractual licence to remain on the property and continue its business for as long as it wishes.
His lawyers, from Wong Partnership, say that even if the court rules against this, the partnership should get a share of the sale payout.
He wants the court to look at the history of the case, the expectations of the hotel partners and the money they have put into the property over 50 years.
But the plaintiffs, through Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal, deny that such a licence exists.
They say the hotel owners were served with a quit notice last March and should vacate the site.
They are asking the court to allow the sale to proceed and, if necessary, decide later whether the hotel proprietors should get a share.
They want a sale by tender this time around and the price to be decided by the market.
They do not want a reserve price to be fixed as was done in 1996, when bids that followed were only slightly higher - leading to suspicion that the minimum price tag had been leaked.
Although the parties lined up for the case comprised initially of five plaintiffs led by Mr Chiam Heng Luan against eight defendants led by Mr Chiam Heng Hsien, the other defendants have since then indicated agreement to the sale, leaving Mr Chiam Heng Hsien as the sole opponent.
[email protected]
Decade-old family feud over $100m property back in court
Relatives fighting one man who is 'blocking' efforts to sell Killiney Road property
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
A 10-YEAR family feud over a prime plot of land in Killiney Road will begin to unfold in court today, with the stakes estimated to be as high as $100 million.
The fight is between Mr Chiam Heng Hsien - who owns a 10 per cent share of the land - and his relatives.
Mr Chiam, who runs the family-owned Mitre Hotel lodging house located at the site, has managed to block their efforts to sell the plot for the past 10 years.
The 40,000 sq ft site - half the size of a football field - was set a $72 million price tag in court a decade ago, but the sale could top $100 million in today's market, given its location just off Orchard Road.
The property was rent-controlled and the hotel proprietors had to pay only $660 a month from 1955 to 2001 - when rent control was abolished.
The family tussle began in 1996 when Mr Chiam, now 61, fought off a move to sell.
His cousin Chiam Heng Luan, in his 90s, and the latter's son Chiam Ai Thong had then sought a court order to let the sale go ahead.
The High Court allowed the sale, but refused to decree that it could be sold with vacant possession.
This was because the hotel still had a rent control tenancy and was not a party to the proceedings.
Justice Kan Ting Chiu then held that the would-be sellers could either negotiate with the hotel owners to vacate the property or take court action to get possession.
Mr Chiam Heng Hsien had then reportedly asked for $21 million to move out and allow the sale.
He was rebuffed and the sale plans were derailed, but a series of legal battles followed.
The hotel ceased to operate in 2002 and is now being run as a lodging house.
Mr Chiam Heng Hsien's relatives, who collectively own more than 80 per cent of the site, are asking the court to declare that the business managing the lodging house is only a tenant and that they have the right to terminate the tenancy.
But Mr Chiam Heng Hsien is arguing that the interests of a partnership set up in the 1940s to run the hotel override the pact between the co-owners to sell the property.
He contends that the partnership has a contractual licence to remain on the property and continue its business for as long as it wishes.
His lawyers, from Wong Partnership, say that even if the court rules against this, the partnership should get a share of the sale payout.
He wants the court to look at the history of the case, the expectations of the hotel partners and the money they have put into the property over 50 years.
But the plaintiffs, through Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal, deny that such a licence exists.
They say the hotel owners were served with a quit notice last March and should vacate the site.
They are asking the court to allow the sale to proceed and, if necessary, decide later whether the hotel proprietors should get a share.
They want a sale by tender this time around and the price to be decided by the market.
They do not want a reserve price to be fixed as was done in 1996, when bids that followed were only slightly higher - leading to suspicion that the minimum price tag had been leaked.
Although the parties lined up for the case comprised initially of five plaintiffs led by Mr Chiam Heng Luan against eight defendants led by Mr Chiam Heng Hsien, the other defendants have since then indicated agreement to the sale, leaving Mr Chiam Heng Hsien as the sole opponent.
[email protected]