Towards fairly apportioning sale proceeds in a collective sale of Strata Property
University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol: 43, Issue: 4, Page: 1494-1520
2020
- 1,490Usage
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,490
- Downloads1,287
- 1,287
- Abstract Views203
Article Description
Cake-cutting is a longstanding metaphor for a wide range of real-world problems that involve the division of anything of value. Unsurprisingly, where owners of a strata scheme wish to end the strata scheme and collectively sell their development, one of the most contentious issues may be the apportionment of sale proceeds. In Singapore, this problem is compounded in mixed developments which have both commercial and residential elements as well as in developments with different sized units, often with disproportionate strata share values; even differing facings and the state of one’s unit may attract disenchantment when trying to apportion proceeds. This article critically analyses how New South Wales (NSW) and Singapore allocate proceeds pursuant to a collective sale of strata property. In this respect, the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 (NSW) and Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) are significantly clearer than Singapore’s Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158) as the latter does not prescribe any statutory formula for apportionment. In examining the jurisprudence and respective strata frameworks, this article proposes how proceeds in a collective sale could be more fairly apportioned.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know