• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Chitchat Lee Tat vs MCST - Over 30 years of bad blood

gatehousethetinkertailor

Alfrescian
Loyal
A dispute over 30 years! This bad blood runs truly deep - and those legal fees....

http://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs...-2012---lee-tat---final-2017-sghc-121-pdf.pdf


Suit No 1087 of 2012 (“the Suit”) is the latest spar in a long-running legal saga between Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd (“Lee Tat”) and the management corporation of a condominium development known as Grange Heights (“the MCST”), regarding the use by the subsidiary proprietors of Grange Heights of a narrow strip of land which both the MCST and Lee Tat claimed they were entitled to use. Lee Tat in particular sought to exclude the use of the strip of land by the subsidiary proprietors. The dispute went on for over 30 years, the parties jousting with each other over five sets of proceedings (all of which were appealed to the Court of Appeal), and was eventually decided in Lee Tat’s favour by the Court of Appeal in 2008 (and affirmed in 2010).

In its judgment in Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 [2009] 1 SLR(R) 875 (“Grange Heights (No 3) (CA)”), the Court of Appeal expressed the hope (at [16]) that that would be the final chapter in the fractious and fractured relationship between the parties. Unfortunately, those words were in vain, falling on deaf ears. Lee Tat has now ironically brought the Suit on the back of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the fifth set of proceedings, suing the MCST in four causes of action: abuse of process, malicious prosecution, malicious falsehood and trespass.


Given the line-up of legal brains for each party, any wonder that the court expressed its exasperation in such terms:

"It would be desirable that, with the dismissal of the Suit, the parties close this protracted and convoluted chapter and move on to other productive endeavours."

Chelva R Rajah SC, Tham Lijing and Stephanie Tan (instructed counsel) (Tan Rajah & Cheah) and Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah (Unilegal LLC) for the plaintiff; Tan Chee Meng SC, Sngeeta Rai and Ngiam Heng Hui Jocelyn (WongPartnership LLP) for the defendant.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
I believe the family of the developer is related to one of the founding directors of OCBC but not the Lee Kong Chian's side. I am not sure but they had accumulated or inherited parcels of land along Orchard Rd. What I do know is that a string of SCs have been involved in all these years including Michael Khoo, Tan Cheng Han, even Arfat Selvam. Sundaresh Menon was also involved. It is now run by the wife.

The funny thing about this case is that Grange Heights owners was taking advantage of the situation without paying a penny when they had 2 main access points on the opposite side all these years. I also understand that the MCST was full of Ang Mos happily using the Condo funds. Apparently she was not advised properly and actually stated that the residents had right of way. Imagine the sliver of land was offered to the Condo and this lady. The Condo chose not buy it and the lady bought it for $3m but could not do zilch. The wrong was made right by the Court of Appeal eventually.

I actually believe that Kannan Ramesh got it wrong. She should have been compensated for the lost years. I also believe there is derelict bungalow belonging to the OCBC family which was run like a backpackers hotel in the 70s/80s.
 
Top