Property owners' rights must be respected, and management cannot impose restrictions without legal grounds.

Introduction

[1] The 1st Plaintiff is the owner and registered proprietor of Basement 1 and Basement 2 Block C ["Subject Property"]. Block C is an office and retail complex with 2 basement floors. The 1st Plaintiff by a tenancy agreement let out the Subject Property to the 2nd Plaintiff to carry out an automated 24-hour car parking business. The Defendant is the Management Corporation of Block C.

[2] The Plaintiffs filed encl 4 for interim injunctions. I heard counsel on 21 October 2022 and granted ad interim injunction orders until further order of court in respect of prayers 1(b) and 1(c) of encl 4. I heard counsel on 13 January 2023 and on 17 February 2023. On 17 February 2023 I granted the inter partes injunction orders.

[3] Prayer 1(b) is to restrain the Defendant from deciding and/or taking such steps on matters that may or would have the effect of affecting or further prohibiting and/or restricting the Plaintiffs' full rights and/or use in the Subject Property at any general meetings of the Defendant pending trial.

[4] Prayer 1(c) is to restrain the Defendant from taking such or any steps (including but not limited to passing or enforcing any by-laws or house-rules) that may or would have the effect of affecting or further prohibiting and/or restricting the Plaintiffs' full rights and/or use in the Subject Property pending trial.

[5] The Defendant has filed an appeal to the court of Appeal against my orders granting prayers 1(b) and 1(c) of encl 4.

[6] The Plaintiffs also filed encl 26 prayer 1 for an injunction to restrain the Defendant from shutting the roller shutters located at the sole entrance/exit (for vehicles) of the Plaintiffs' basements pending trial. The Defendant has been closing the roller shutters from 8 pm to 6 am every Monday to Friday, from 2.30 pm every Saturday to the following Monday 6 am and on every Sunday and public holidays.

[7] No keys are given to the Plaintiffs by the Defendant to open these roller shutters. The Defendant's defence is that the locking up is to prevent theft. The Defendant further argues that the Plaintiffs and the car owners are still able to access the car parks via the staircases and lifts.

[8] On 17 February 2023 I granted the inter partes injunction order for encl 26 prayer 1. Similarly, the Defendant has filed an appeal to the court of Appeal.

[9] These are my grounds of decision for both appeals.

Background Facts

The Pleaded Case Of The Plaintiffs

[10] The pleaded case of the Plaintiffs is as follows.

[11] The 1st Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Subject Property. Block C is an office and retail complex with 2 basement floors. The 1st Plaintiff by a tenancy agreement let out the Subject Property to the 2nd Plaintiff to carry out an automated 24-hour car parking business.

[12] The Defendant is the management corporation of the said Block C, where the Subject Property is located.

[13] The 2nd Plaintiff by a license agreement engaged a company called Matrix Parking Solution Sdn Bhd to take over the car park services over the Subject Property with effect from 1 September 2022.

[14] Following the said license agreement, the 1st Plaintiff sent an email dated 30 August 2022 to inform the Defendant, amongst others, to keep the said roller shutters to the Subject Property open on a 24/7 basis from 1 September 2022 onwards. The Defendant was also informed that there would be a 24/7 monitoring of the Subject Property.

[15] The roller shutters are located at the sole entrance/exit (for vehicles) of the Subject Property. No keys are given to the Plaintiffs by the Defendant to open these roller shutters.

[16] The request was declined by the Defendant solely on the ground of security.

[17] The Defenda