Singapore's 1st FREE property portal where real estate agents, owners, landlords, buyers and tenants can buy, sell, rent and lease a property.
 
Lost Password?  Register


Horizon Towers Print E-mail
User Rating: / 4
PoorBest 
Article Index
Horizon Towers
Page 2


Details:
Address: 15 Leonie Hill Road, 29 Leonie Hill
Type: Condominium
Developer: Horizon Towers Pte Ltd
District: 09
Yr of Completion: 1984
Tenure: 99 years
Total no of Units: 210
Unit sizes:
Studio: 68 sq m
4 bedrooms: 214 - 243 sq m
Penthouse: 448 - 492 sq m
Horizon Towers
Facilities:
Swimming pool
Wading pool
Sauna
Gymnasium
Tennis
Squash
BBQ
Clubhouse
Playground
Car park
24 hours security



Comments (16)
RSS comments
1. Written by News on 25-02-2010 23:54
 
 
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.
 
2. Written by News on 27-01-2010 20:10
 
 
Defendant moves to strike out suit
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.
 
3. Written by News on 26-01-2010 23:45
 
 
Saga roars back to life with new lawsuit
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.
 
4. Written by News on 18-07-2008 13:11
 
 
Dissenters lose appeal
THE drawn-out collective sale of Horizon Towers finally came to a close on Thursday when the High Court threw out the appeal of the objecting owners, allowing it to proceed. 
 
This means that Hotel Properties (HPL) and its two partners can now complete the $500 million collective sale of the Leonie Hill estate, if the objecting owners do not appeal against the High Court's decision. 
 
It has been one-and-a-half years since the deal was inked. 
 
High Court judge Choo Han Teck on Thursday said he was of the view that there was no error of law that would have corrupted the decision of the Strata Titles Board (STB), which had allowed the sale to proceed.
 
5. Written by News on 11-12-2007 03:26
 
 
En bloc sale approved
STB approves en bloc sale of Horizon Towers 
Almost a year of wrangling and millions of dollars in legal fees later, the controversial en bloc sale of Horizon Towers was eventually approved by the Strata Titles Board (STB). 
 
Finally :)
 
6. Written by Horizon people on 13-09-2007 15:26
 
 
Greed is the people of Horizon
Greed, we can only say about these people. Greedy like anything, want more more more, terrible. Now they end up in hot soup.
 
7. Written by congo on 09-09-2007 04:57
 
 
Greed is the people of Horizon
This show one thing which is very evident, when there is great danger ahead. Every body is just looking out at their own interest. Sigh. They should have known that  
 
Instead of looking out for their own interest , they shd bend together and get a PANEL of lawyers to fight the case for them. It like the theory when you try to break a single pair of Chopsticks. It breaks easily. OBS can crush you easily. But when you bend together , your resources can be quite a bit. You can drag on the case for sometime. Individual owner cannot be sued independently. But instead , OBS and gang must sue the entire hundred of owners altogether. Talk is cheap, surely they know that OBS will not let them go easily after all they have signed the contract even before they fight out the case involving STRATA BOARD eariler.  
 
May be if there is a lawyer who wants to be FAMOUS for winning this case might want to step forward. If he wins , i can gurantee , he will be well fed for life with all ppl looking for him for legal advice.  
 
Can they get a QC to fight the case ?
 
8. Written by guest on 09-09-2007 04:24
 
 
Deal in limbo as sales commite
By Wee Li-En,  
 
(SINGAPORE) The majority sellers of Horizon Towers were supposed to get together last night to resolve a problem, but things ended up being possibly worse. 
 
 
The sales committee quit last night at the meeting held at Holiday Inn Park View Hotel, and even up to 11pm, no new committee had been formed, BT understands. 
 
The majority sellers who arrived with their lawyers in tow were supposed to decide how to respond to a lawsuit which they face brought by Hotel Property Ltd (HPL), Morgan Stanley Real Estate managed funds and Qatar Investment Authority after the en bloc sale of their Leonie Hill property fell through last month. 
 
The Strata Titles Board (STB) refused to grant a collective sale order, saying that Horizon Towers had filed a defective application. HPL and its partners are suing the majority sellers for failing to file a proper application.  
 
HPL and its partners in February signed a deal with 84 per cent of the owners of Horizon Towers to buy the property en bloc for $500 million, for redevelopment. There have been media reports that some sellers regretted their decision to sell at that price when neighbouring developments later sold for twice as much per square foot. 
 
 
 
Last night's meeting plunged into limbo when the sales committee quit. Sellers who appeared at the meeting said volunteers were being asked to serve on a new sales committee, and that two men stepped forward on condition they would be granted blanket immunity from legal proceedings. 
 
However, they did not get their condition, and no conclusion was reached. 
 
BT understands that by the time the meeting started, there were only three people left on the committee as the other members had quit in the past weeks. This fails to meet the quorum needed of five people on the committee. 
 
Throughout the meeting that started at 8pm and was scheduled to end by 11:59pm yesterday, groups of people and individuals were seen leaving the ballroom at different times to discuss and to smoke. 
 
The meeting was tightly monitored by about six security officers who made sure only majority sellers were allowed into the ballroom. Applause interspersed with cheering was heard at different intervals of the meeting. 
 
The majority owners whom BT spoke to estimated there were more than a hundred people who turned up. 
 
They had a mixed response regarding the outcome. One man seemed upset that the sales committee had quit and said: 'I don't know what's going to happen now. Who cares?' Another seemed pessimistic about the chances of another committee being formed: 'Who would want to be on the sales committee now with the threats of legal suits?' 
 
At press time, the meeting was still going on, BT understands.
 
9. Written by guest on 28-08-2007 00:55
 
 
2 weeks for Horison owners to decide fat
Two weeks - that's all the time the majority sellers of Horizon Towers now have to find a way to salvage the botched collective sale of their development, otherwise each of the 255 owners who signed off on the en bloc sale will be sued for some $4 million each. -BT
 
10. Written by guest on 25-08-2007 21:42
 
 
Sellers to discuss options
Aug 25, 2007. HORIZON Towers flat sellers will meet next Wednesday in a push to raise millions of dollars to fight a lawsuit by Hotel Properties (HPL) and its partners over a botched collective sale. Another meeting is due to be held on Sept 7.  
 
Stay tuned as more new s unfold in coming days ....
 


 
 

Latest Condo News

The Panorama
Crowds flock to The Panorama condo previ
The Straits Times Wednesday, Jan 08, 2014 SINGAPORE- Hundreds o...
More...

The Panorama
Wheelock shells out S$550m for Ang Mo Ki
According to a release, the Board of Directors of Wheelock Proper...
More...

Sky Vue
Official launch of Sky Vue on 28 Septemb
Sky Vue sets a new benchmark for city-fringe living in Bishan ...
More...

Sky Vue
Price lower than Sky Habitat
CAPITALAND is pricing its new condo project in Bishan lower than ...
More...

The Tembusu
Sale of properties to interested person
Directors of Wing Tai Holdings Limited (the “Company”) wish to an...
More...

 

Search Property

  Advanced Search