\n<\/p>\n
A key focus of the hearing was an interactive infographic in the published article under the header “The price of quiet mansion deals: Buyers typically pay premiums for off-radar transactions in Singapore”.<\/p>\n
The chart showed a scatter plot of various GCB deals of various sizes and per square foot prices, categorised either as caveated or non-caveated purchases.<\/p>\n
Mr Singh argued that the chart lacked a proper basis for comparison and said it did not account for variables such as property location, design, frontage, nor did it consider actual property valuations.<\/p>\n
Mr Low accepted that he had not checked valuations or asking prices for the properties.<\/p>\n
The court also heard that the chart was based on data from realtor List Sotheby’s International Realty records.<\/p>\n
Mr Singh pointed the court to an exchange between Mr Low and a source from List Sotheby, who had said that there was no difference between caveated and non-caveated transactions in terms of pricing, which also depended on various factors.<\/p>\n
He said Mr Low disregarded the answer and presented a false picture.<\/p>\n
“You created a notion, a fiction of there being premiums paid for off-radar transactions,” Mr Singh said. Mr Low disagreed.<\/p>\n
The court also asked Mr Low who initiated such off-the-radar transactions, with Mr Singh noting that the article claims buyers are willing to “pay a premium” to keep these deals off radar.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Justice Audrey Lim asked what Mr Low meant by “pay a premium”, and whether he agreed that it was the buyer, not the seller, who determines whether to put a caveat on the property or not.\u00a0<\/p>\n Caveats are typically lodged by buyers to protect their interest in a property and prevent it from being sold to someone else, often in transactions where financing such as mortgages or bank loans is involved.<\/p>\n Mr Low agreed that the buyer decides, then stated that the article simply meant that buyers would pay more for non-caveated deals than caveated ones, and not that they would pay more to keep the deal off-radar.<\/p>\n Mr Singh rejected this explanation, arguing that there was “no basis for comparison” between the prices of caveated and non-caveated deals and likening the comparison to “apples and oranges”.<\/p>\n Mr Singh then asked Mr Low: “What you were conveying was that a premium was being paid so that the buyer would also have the benefit of the seller keeping mum, and keeping this transaction off radar. Isn’t that right?”<\/p>\n Mr Low replied that was “not right”, but Mr Singh countered that “no other explanation makes sense”.<\/p>\n Noting that he had given Mr Low “countless opportunities” to explain his position, Mr Singh suggested the chart, other paragraphs, and the headline were all “designed to stick the knife” into Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan.<\/p>\n Mr Singh also scrutinised a spreadsheet compiled by Mr Low as part of his research into GCB transactions.<\/p>\n The court heard that Mr Low had extracted property ownership data into this spreadsheet, which Mr Singh said only had a few entries.<\/p>\n Mr Singh suggested this showed a focus on a \u201csmall minority\u201d of persons \u2014 including the claimants \u2014 whose names were identified.<\/p>\n Mr Low disagreed, saying the spreadsheet was a work in progress.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n