Homepage
PR Newswire
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
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
