Defendant's claims were denied as the Plaintiff's maintenance obligations were independent, and statutory limitation defenses were not applicable in a private commercial contract context.

JUDGMENT

Maidzuara Mohammed JC:

[1] The claim by the Plaintiff against the Defendant was for the sum of RM715,163.40 together with interest and costs.

Facts Material To This Action

[2] The Plaintiff was established on 28 August 2008. It was an agreed fact between the parties that the Plaintiff was established pursuant to the Building and Common Property Act 2007 ("Act 663") with regard to Plaza Hang Tuah in Melaka.

[3] The Defendant is the owner of a number of properties ("Property") in Plaza Hang Tuah. The area of the Defendant's Property which included the fourth floor in Plaza Hang Tuah was 13,509 sq feet. These facts were agreed to between the parties.

[4] The amount of RM715,163.40 claimed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant was for the arrears of maintenance charges and sinking fund for the years 2012 until 2014.

The Defendant's Pleaded Case In Main Action

[5] The Defendant pleaded a number of issues in their defence to the claim by the Plaintiff against them in the main action.

[6] For the purposes of this trial, this Court will consider and determine the issues which were pertinent for arriving at a decision.

Issue 1 in main action

"tuntutan Plaintif... adalah dilarang oleh Akta Perlindungan Pihak Berkuasa Awam 1948 (Disemak 1978) (Akta 198)...kerana melampau tempoh masa 36 bulan mulai tuntutan ini terakru."

Issue 2 in main action

"Defendan tiada liabiliti untuk mem bayar caj penyenggaraan (sekiranya Plaintif ada melaksanakan penyenggaraan, yang dinafikan) dan sumbangan kepada kumpulan wang penjeias di bawah, antara lain, s 12 Akta 757 atas sebab Defendan bukan pemaju atau pembeli Harta Defendan di bawah s 2 Akta 757".

Issue 3 in main action

"Plaintiff gagal untuk mematuhi Akta 663 dalam pengenaan umpukan unit syer dan maka pengenaan caj penyenggaraan dalam cara digunakan oleh Plaintiff adalah tidak sah dan menyalahi Akta 663.

"Oleh yang demikian, Defendan menyatakan bahawa tanggungjawab Defendan untuk membuat bayaran bagi caj penyenggaraan... dan sumbangan wang penjelas tidak terbangkit/timbul di sisi undang-undang."

Issue 4 in main action

"Defendan, atas permintaan Plaintif untuk membuat bayaran caj penyenggaraan dan kumpulan wang penjelas bagi tahun 2015 pada jumlah RM249,115.30... telah bersetuju untuk membayar bayaran 2015, dengan syarat nyata bahawa Plaintif hendaklah melaksanakan penyenggaran ke atas harta bersama Plaza Hang Tuah, terutamanya harta bersama bagi Harta Defendan serta menunjukkan bukti penyenggaraan tersebut."

"Akan tetapi, setelah Defendan membuat bayaran 2015 tersebut, Plaintif masih sama sekali gagal, enggan dan/atau cuai untuk melaksanakan penyengaraan ke atas harta bersama Plaza Hang Tuah, terutamanya harta bersama bagi Harta Defendan."

"Oleh itu, Plaintif telah melakukan "total failure of consideration"."

Issue 5 in main action

"Plaintif langsung tidak ada hak dan kedudukan undang-undang untuk mendapat pembayaran caj penyenggaraan memandangkan Plaintif gagal enggan dan/atau cuai untuk melaksanakan penyenggaraan bagi Harta Defendan."

Issue 6 in main action

"Plaintif juga sama sekaii gagal, enggan dan/atau cuai untuk melaksanakan apa-apa penyenggaraan ke atas harta bersama Plaza Hang Tuah, terutamanya, harta bersama bagi Harta Defendan."

Main Action: Determination By The High Court

Issue 1 In Main Action

"tuntutan Plaintif... adalah dilarang oleh Akta Perlindungan Pihak Berkuasa Awam 1948 (Disemak 1978) (Akta 198)...kerana melampau tempoh masa 36 bulan mulai tuntutan ini terakru."

[7] The Defendant contended that they are a "pihak berkuasa awam" and that as a "pihak berkuasa awam", the Defendant is entitled to rely on the provisions of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 . The Defendant relied on the and contended that the claim by the Plaintiff against the Defendant was barred by limitation.

[8] Section 2 of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 states that:

"2. Where, after the coming into force of this Act, any suit, action, prosecution or other proceeding is commenced in the Federation against any