SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 MarsdenLR 232

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
FOO KOK KHEONG & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
TRIBUNAL STRATA & ANOR – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: WA-25-378-05/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Jashvini A Rajendran ,Respondent Advocate: Siti Zubaidah Helmaterlidi FC

Judicial review applications must comply with procedural requirements, including timely filing and proper verification, or they will be deemed defective.

Headnote:(A) Strata Management Act 2013 – Judicial Review – Strata Management (Strata Management Tribunal) Regulations 2015 – Regulation 48 – Applicants sought to set aside Tribunal's award for unpaid charges, claiming irregular service and inability to attend due to COVID-19 restrictions – Tribunal dismissed the application, leading to judicial review – Court found the judicial review application defective due to improper filing and out of time – The Award was made in default and not on merits. (Paras 5, 8, 46)

(B) Judicial Review – Requirements for filing – The Statement under O 53 r 3(2) must be properly verified and in the national language – Failure to comply renders the application defective. (Paras 21, 35)

(C) Impugned Decision – The applicants sought to quash the Tribunal's Award dated 20 May 2021, which was communicated on 4 June 2021, but failed to file within the stipulated time. (Paras 42, 46)

Facts of the case: The applicants, residing in Australia, were unaware of Tribunal proceedings due to travel restrictions and claimed irregular service of documents. The Tribunal awarded RM14,212.64 against them in default of appearance. (Paras 6, 8)

Findings of Court: The judicial review application was dismissed due to improper filing and being out of time, with no jurisdiction to hear the application. (Paras 46)

Issues: Whether the judicial review application was properly filed and whether the Tribunal's Award was valid. (Paras 21, 42)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to file the Statement in the national language and within the time limit rendered the application defective, and the Award was made in default, not on merits. (Paras 35, 46)

Result: Application for judicial review dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh J:

The parties

[1] The applicants are the proprietors of a condominium unit known as 01-14-01, Sri Lata Condominium, Jalan 5/125, Desa Petaling, Kuala Lumpur ("the said Unit").

[2] The 1st respondent ("the Tribunal") is the Strata Management Tribunal, which was established and regulated by the Strata Management Act 2013 (" SMA ").

[3] The 2nd respondent is the management corporation of Sri Lata Condominium.

The Factual Background

[4] The 2nd respondent initiated a claim against the applicants at the Tribunal seeking payment for a total sum of RM16,242.64, the particulars of which are as follows:

(i) Outstanding maintenance and other charges: RM14,692.64

(ii) Audit charges: RM800

(iii) Account Charges: RM250

(iv) Damages: RM500.

[5] On 20 May 2021, the Tribunal issued an award against the applicants in default of their appearance ("the Award"). The Award inter alia states as follows:

Tindakan ini telah pada hari ini dipanggil untuk pendengaran di hadapan DATUK ROGER TAN KOR MEE, PRESIDEN TRIBUNAL dengan kehadiran PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN PANGSAPURI SRI LATA sebagai pihak yang menuntut dan tanpa kehadiran penentang.

Pihak Penentang hendaklah membayar Pihak Yang Menuntut sejumlah RM14.212.64 (Ringgit Malaysia: Empat Belas Ribu Dua Ratus Dua Belas dan Sen Enam Puluh Empat) sahaja sebagai pembayaran jumlah yang tertunggak setakat 16 November 2020.

[6] It is the applicants' case that at all material times, they were based in Australia and therefore were not aware of the impending proceedings before the Tribunal against them. In any event, as of 20 May 2021, the applicants, who are senior citizens, were unable to attend the hearing before the Tribunal due to the travel restrictions imposed by the Australian government during the COVID-19 pandemic.

[7] Dissatisfied, the applicants filed an application to set aside the Award under reg 48 of the Strata Management (Strata Management Tribunal) Regulations 2015 ("the 2015 Regulations"). Regulation 48(1) of the 2015 Regulations provides as follows:

Any award obtained where any one party does not appear at the hearing, or any award made pursuant to para 23(a), may be set aside by the Tribunal on the application of the aggrieved party.

[8] However, the Tribunal dismissed the application to set aside the Award on 17 February 2022.

[9] Aggrieved by the dismissal to set aside the Award the applicants commenced this proceeding for judicial review to inter alia quash the same. The applicants also sought a declaration that the Award made by the Tribunal against the applicants was wrong in law.

[10] Leave to commence judicial review was granted by this Court on 1 August 2022.

At the Tribunal

[11] The matter was first heard before the Tribunal on 24 March 2021. That was during the Conditional Movement Control Order ("CMCO"). The applicants were absent. The 2nd respondent was represented by Saruar Jan binti Baboo. Puan Saruar Jan intimated to the Tribunal that the applicants had requested that the hearing be conducted online as they were residing in Australia and were not permitted to travel out.

[12] The learned President of the Tribunal took cognisance that the Notices in Form 1 (the Statement of Claim) and Form 4 (Notice of Hearing) were attached by the 2nd respondent at the said Unit. There was also a copy of the letter from POS Malaysia dated 12 December 2021 addressed to the 2nd respondent confirming the suspension of mail services, including registered mail from Malaysia to Australia from 30 March 2020 to around 7 October 2021.

[13] It is the applicant's case before the Tribunal that the 2nd respondent was aware that the applicants had migrated to Sydney, Australia and that the 1st applicant's last known address was 66A, Portland Crescent, New South Wales 2035, Australia. The applicants therefore contended that the service of the said Forms 1 and 4 was irregular as it was not done in accordance with s 144 of the SMA . Section 144 requires the Forms to be sent to the "last-known addr


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top