AS A nation of home owners, few matters affect the Singaporean more than homes, or matters concerning their property.
So it comes as no surprise that many en bloc sales frequently end up being fought in the courtrooms - the High Court, and all the way up to the Court of Appeal - despite the high costs involved.
It's also no surprise that when the time came for the remaining 10 minority owners of Gillman Heights to get their appeal heard, the public gallery was packed to the rafters - with members of the audience ranging from residents, the media and the curious.
This ruling is expected to be a landmark one.
If the Court of Appeal overturns the High Court's previous ruling which supported Gillman's en bloc sale, the estate will go down in local history as a rare case of failed en blocs, and the repercussions will be far-reaching. It will likely give hope to a growing number of minority owners who above all, value the right to own their homes.
If it rules in favour of the majority, it will go a long way towards demarcating the criteria and legislation surrounding collective sales. It will also end a two-year long saga and owners will finally be able to get their money and get on with their lives.
It would appear, after Tuesday's two-hour long hearing, that the fight facing minority owners' is an uphill one.
Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, engaged by law firm Tan Chin Hoe & Co to act for the minority owners, argued his case eloquently, but not without difficulty as he was questioned repeatedly by all three judges. He argued that collective sale law, introduced in 1999, had not been intended to cover HUDC estates.
Another point of contention is the calculation of the development's age. This date determines if the estate needs an 80 or 90 per cent level of consent to qualify. Currently, 80 per cent is needed if the development is more than 10 years old; 90 per cent if it's less than 10 years.
Mr Hwang argued that because Gillman Heights obtained its certificate of statutory completion only in 2002, it requires a 90 per cent level of agreement. (About 87.54 per cent of owners have said yes to the collective sale.)
This second point proved a hard case to fight. The judges gave him a rather hard time, questioning the logic of "resetting" the estate's age according to when it obtained its CSC (certificate of statutory completion) or TOP (temporary occupation permit issued by URA when a development is deemed completed)
Mr Hwang argued that "Parliament had intended" for the "latest TOP" or "latest CSC" to be used as the date to calculate the age of the development, even for privatised HUDC estates, which only got their CSC or TOP much later. One judge countered: "It's not what Parliament intended. It's what YOU think Parliment intended." At this point, one resident (likely a majority owner) loudly, and quite rudely, sniggered from the public gallery.
Representing the majority owners, Mr Quek Mong Hua of Lee & Lee said, however, that it was an 'indisputable fact' that Gillman Heights was completed in 1984, making it more than 22 years old in 2007.
Senior Counsel Andre Yeap of Rajah & Tann, acting for the purchasers - CapitaLand, Hotel Properties and two private funds - argued that as homes in HUDC estates, upon privatisation, become strata-titled units, they are covered by the 1999 laws on collective sales. He argued that it was obvious that "Parliament had intended" this, to which one judge again countered: "That's what YOU think Parliment intended. not necessarily what Parliament intended".
By this time, the statement was becoming something of a catch phrase and drew laughter from the public gallery.
The verdict, meant to be delivered on Wednesday at 4.30pm, has since been postponed to next Monday. Ruling in favour of the minority might open previous en blocs at other former HUDC estates up for questioning. These include Waterfront View and Farrer Court.
Given that the odds seem to be stacked against the minority owners and the high costs, I asked one of them at the hearing why they were pursuing the case.
The reply: "We feel that there's a point worth arguing so we want to take it up to the highest authority... Now, we can only hope for the best".
Many have said it is "silly" to fight on such a technicality.
But while it might be obvious that the age of the development is more than 20 years, what else do minority owners have to fight on after all? Apart from the little details, what other choice do they have?
These technicalities - however silly they might appear to the man-in-the-street - are the only way for them to achieve their ultimate desired outcome: The overturning of the collective sale. And keeping their homes.
All eyes are now on the Court of Appeal's decision next Monday. The appeal will probably not change the future of Gillman Heights. It will likely be demolished, and redeveloped into a new, swanky condo.
But at least for those 10 owners, the appeal means they can truly say they did their best to save their homes.
One silver lining in this long-drawn out case, as one analyst pointed out yesterday, is that the current market situation is now in the sellers' favour.
The money each unit will get - around $870,000 to $950,000 - is much higher than what any individual unit will fetch in the open market. And the replacement home they will look for is likely to be cheaper now than when the deal was first done in December 2007.
So if the residents do lose their homes, at least they'll be paid well for it.