Management corporations must adhere to statutory provisions for maintenance charge recovery; contracts cannot override statutory obligations.

[40] Under s 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 "Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any of its legal right or liability ......must prove that those facts exist". Therefore, the burden of proof is on the Defendant to show that the Agreement was approved by the Plaintiff in its AGM by "resolution" under s 45(5), or even by a "certificate" issued by the Plaintiff under s 45(4), of the STA . It is not good enough, and \ does not suffice for the Defendant to show that the Agreement was signed by N. Madhavan Nair, the previous Chairman of the Plaintiff. The Defendant is required to prove that the Agreement was approved by the Plaintiff at its AGM. However, the Defendant failed to do this. This situation is unlike that of the Plaintiff, where notwithstanding that the Plaintiff did not show the resolutions passed at its 1st AGM and 4th AGM to approve the rates of the maintenance charges, at least the Plaintiff had its witness, PW1, to orally confirm that the Plaintiff charged the rates of maintenance charges based on what was approved by the Plaintiff in its respective AGMs and this is recorded in the Minutes of the AGMs ("Minutes"). It is not satisfactory that PW1 did not produce the Minutes. Nonetheless, based on PW1's testimony given on oath, the court accepts his evidence. However, in the case of the Defendant, the Defendant did not even call any witness or adduce any evidence to confirm that the Agreement was approved by the Plaintiff in an AGM.

[41] The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff is estopped from contending that N.Madhavan Nair was not authorized by the Plaintiff to enter into the Agreement. The Defendant relies on the decision in Stealth Infra Sdn Bhd v. Sr Alias Marjoh , [2016] 9 MLJ 433 where the court, in applying "the internal management rule" ("Turquand's rule") ruled that "the plaintiff was entitled in law and in fact to presume that all internal processes and rules of the defendant were complied with".

[42] With respect, I am of the opinion that the internal management rule or Turquand's rule cannot apply here when there are express statutory provisions on how maintenance charges ought to be levied by a MC.

[43] The Defendant further submits that KJ was first appointed by the Defendant, who was the managing contractor for the Developer, before the 1st AGM of the MC/Plaintiff was convened. Upon the convening of the 1st AGM, and election of the council members of the Plaintiff, the Defendant assigned the contract to the Plaintiff to continue with KJ's services. Therefore, after the 1st AGM, the Plaintiff took over the contract and continued with the appointment of KJ as the managing agent for the Complex. This was confirmed by DW1 and DW4.

[44] It is noted that no witness from KJ was called. The fact remains that after its incorporation on 21 April 2008, the Plaintiff, as the MC, is entitled to collect all maintenance charges, with or without KJ's assistance as its managing agent. The Agreement which was executed after the 1st AGM, can only bind the MC if it is approved by the MC.

[45] In the absence of any evidence that a resolution has been passed, or a certificate issued by the Plaintiff as the MC, approving the maintenance charges as provided in the Agreement, the Defendant cannot rely on the Agreement for its defence. Therefore, the Defendant is required to pay the Plaintiff all sums due to the Plaintiff as a MC.

[46] The law is trite, that a person cannot contract out of statutory requirements.

[47] In the court of Appeal decision, Perbadanan Pengurusan Endah Parade v. Magnificient Diagraph Sdn Bhd , 2014 MarsdenLR 472 , Mohamad Ariff Yusof JCA stated:

'In this respect, we agree with the proposition advanced by the respondent that the management corporation as a body incorporated