NZ court throws out property related claim by three S'poreans

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#1
tot of sharing this with fellow buddies thinking of buying overseas property, this news contain pieces of valuable lessons and tips..
I wonder if sg govt is feeling pressure to reverse the local cooling measures against the risk of its citizens losing their wealth in cheaper overseas property options
any buddies trained in nz law here bo? I got aplenty questions to ask. thanks. (not vested in nz poperty)

K.c. VijayanThe Straits TimesSunday, May 11, 2014Singaporeans thinking of investing in New Zealand property should think again. You are not as savvy about the risks as locals, nor as well-informed about how to protect yourself if things go south, cautioned a Kiwi judge in throwing out a $570,000 claim by three Singaporeans. The trio were burned after paying deposits for residential lots to two Auckland-based development companies which went bust. The firms, it was later discovered, had been helmed by bankrupts. A probe by liquidators suggested that those behind the companies siphoned off "substantial sums" paid by buyers, said New Zealand High Court Associate Judge Roger Bell. "While I do not intend any slight to the people of Singapore, they are unlikely to be as well-informed as New Zealanders of the risks of investment in residential property in New Zealand and may be less aware of protections available to them under New Zealand law," he said. "It would not be as easy for them as for New Zealanders to obtain legal advice about the proposed development and the developers' way of selling them," said Judge Bell in judgment grounds released on Monday. More Asian home buyers, Singaporeans included, have begun to eye New Zealand's property market following new taxes that cooled the market in Singapore and Hong Kong, according to earlier reports. But this is believed to be the the first reported case of Singaporeans going to a Wellington court to recoup losses. Singaporeans Adrian Ng and his wife Alicia Go, as well as Mr Matthew Lim, had attempted to recover the money they had lost from law firm Harkness Law, which acted for the two companies. - See more at: http://business.asiaone.com/news/nz-cour...FCET6.dpuf

They had been assured during presentations here in 2011 that the funds would be kept safe in a trust account for the companies. The trio sued Harkness under New Zealand's Fair Trading Act in the High Court, arguing that it was liable as it had been engaged by the companies in the matter. The projects involved terraced and semi-detached houses to be developed in two lots by the firms - Hunter Gills Road and Albany Heights Villas - which had begun selling even before they had acquired the title to the land. Key people in the project team, it emerged, included two undischarged bankrupts and a director of a failed finance company. The Singaporeans alleged that the law firm allowed its name and trust account to be used by the developers in the promotional materials, and had held responsibility as stakeholders of the deposits. They claimed Harkness should have known the developers did not own the land for the proposed project, and should not have released the funds as instructed by the developers. But the law firm countered that there was no stakeholder provision in the option to purchase agreement, and it was not privy to the marketing materials used in Singapore, apart from its trust account being used for deposits. Judge Bell noted that giving the trust account details for the marketing process was consistent with honesty on the law firm's part. The court found that the investors had no case, as the lawyers were only handling the developers' trust account to keep the funds, and had no knowledge of the developers' deception. Neither was there any allegation that the law firm intended to help the developers in their deception, said Judge Bell. He ordered the action against the firm to be struck off. This article was published on May 9 in The Straits Times. - See more at: http://business.asiaone.com/news/nz-cour...wTNeB.dpuf
Reply
#2
First of all i am not sure this has anything to do with SG gov. There will always be investor out there, cool down or not.

Secondly, SG gov don't even care much about Billions lost in S-Chip in our own turf.

Just my Diary
corylogics.blogspot.com/


Reply
#3
(11-05-2014, 07:43 AM)corydorus Wrote: First of all i am not sure this has anything to do with SG gov. There will always be investor out there, cool down or not.

Secondly, SG gov don't even care much about Billions lost in S-Chip in our own turf.

i definitely agree on the second.
And what about the sub-primed CDO structured financial products sold to all Singaporeans?
From what i read, it is best not to buy any "STRUCTURED financial products" from any Banks or anyone. Nobody is going to STRUCTURED a product to sell you for your benefit more than for themselves.

This remind me no one is going to open a CASINO for your so-called entertainment if CASINO doesn't makes ton of money every year. i am always flummoxed by people who consider losing their money in CASINO as "Entertainment", as fun.
So there it goes the same as no one is going to open a "STOCK EXCHANGE" to help you to make money.

That's why caveat emptor always apply.
Whether you are buying "entertainment" in a CASINO or in a STOCK EXCHANGE"
And both can be fun for some people.
For me (anywhere, anytime) even losing a little bit of my money is never fun. But rather 心 痛 ah!
WB:-

1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.

Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.

NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Reply
#4
This should be a warning for any investments that is privately arranged and not specifically NZ properties. Any privately arranged deal carries higher counterparty risk.

There are already similar cases related to Singapore properties.
Reply
#5
In Singapore your escrow money used to be retained by the Law Firm(you engaged) as stakeholder in your property transaction. But there are so many cases of escrow money into the $millions absconded by the lawyer in the past that now who is actually the stakeholder of our real estate escrow money?

Regarding the NZ case:-
But the law firm countered that there was no stakeholder provision in the option to purchase agreement, and it was not privy to the marketing materials used in Singapore, apart from its trust account being used for deposits.

So the moral of the story is who is your "stakeholder" in your option to purchase is very important. And under what terms or conditions before your escrow money can be released.
This is layman's (me) understanding.
Anyone like to add more in terms of actual practice in Singapore and other countries?
Just curious!
WB:-

1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.

Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.

NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Reply
#6
Always buy from A REPUTABLE AND RELIABLE DEVELOPER OVERSEAS.

And better to hold cash in own account than lawyer trust account!!!
Reply
#7
(11-05-2014, 02:03 PM)Contrarian Wrote: Always buy from A REPUTABLE AND RELIABLE DEVELOPER OVERSEAS.

And better to hold cash in own account than lawyer trust account!!!
Of course cash in our own pocket is always safer or better in someone's pocket. But the seller (developer) also afraid you don't really have the money to buy. So shows me the your money first in some "trusted" neutral party's hand (stakeholder) before we sign any agreement or progress to the next level of transaction.- progressive payment scheme.
WB:-

1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.

Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.

NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Reply
#8
I wonder which was the local marketing agent in sg..it wasn't disclosed in the news.
Reply
#9
From what i read/know, the "option to purchase" (aka letter of intent) is a very important document. It's best to hire a Lawyer (from the beginning) to deal with the seller, even before signing "option to purchase". You should only sign the "Option to Purchase" after your lawyer has vetted the document.
Another words even before you think of buying a property, you should engage a lawyer to represent you first in all property transactions. Most people(layman) sign the "option to purchase" then engage a lawyer. Well i did it too. (Green horn ma).
But under some circumstances like, you like the property so , so much, you just can't resist to plonk down your "option to purchase" money-you want to choke the property then no regret lol if anything happens then. No regret?
It's O. K. if you don't mind at this stage of transaction, the most you lose is your option to purchase down-payment. But who like to lose any money?
WB:-

1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.

Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.

NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Reply
#10
(12-05-2014, 09:45 AM)Temperament Wrote: ... you should engage a lawyer to represent you first in all property transactions.

You raised a very good point. Unfortunately, most buyers in such cases got sold by the "freebie" when the counterparty said that legal costs are absorbed by the later party. Without the explicit business relationship, there is no duty of care by the lawyer to the buyer. The scope of responsibility of the lawyer is also not determined by the buyer.

Buyers should never be impressed by brand names of lawyers/bankers representing the counterparty. Sometimes, these professionals are hired by counterparty on hourly rates to give general legal information or draft documents. They do not act as trustees or guarantors.

The windfall of "all legal costs absorbed" is in effect a trojan horse.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)