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

2022 MarsdenLR 365

HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
TROPICANA MACALISTER AVENUE (PENANG) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA TROPICANA 218 MACALISTER – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: PA-24NCVC-469-05-2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Aimee Liew,Au Yong Wai Nyan,Joanna Woo ,Respondent Advocate: Lee Khai,Teh Chiew Yin

The Joint Management Body is limited by the Strata Management Act in determining maintenance charges, requiring collective decisions at a general meeting.

Headnote:(A) Strata Management Act 2013 – Sections 25 and 60(3)(b) – Plaintiff sought declaratory relief regarding voting rights at the Annual General Meeting – Defendant claimed varying maintenance charge rates for different property types – Court found limitations on JMB's powers to impose varying rates and held that charges must be established through general meeting – Court declined to grant relief sought in Plaintiff's Originating Summons due to academic nature stemming from adjournment of the AGM. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 27, 28, 70)

(B) Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Clarification on the scope under the SMA 2013 – Tribunal cannot impose rates, ruling reserved for JMB at a general meeting – Court upheld these principles, ensuring fair and equal treatment of parcel rates. (Paras 22-25, 46)

Facts of the case: The Plaintiff filed an OS seeking rights to vote at the 3rd AGM dated 5 June 2022; however, the AGM was postponed. The Defendant filed a counterclaim regarding various motions and declarations surrounding maintenance charges. (Paras 2-10, 11-12)

Findings of Court: The rights to propose varying maintenance charges lie solely with the JMB at a general meeting and cannot be enacted by the Tribunal or presented by a single party, affirming that resolutions cannot bypass statutory requirements. (Paras 27-28, 36)

Issues: The Court addressed whether the JMB could impose different maintenance rates and the enforceability of motions presented by the Plaintiff. (Paras 22-25, 60)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the laws clearly delineate JMB's responsibilities under the SMA 2013, emphasizing the necessity for collective decision-making at a proper meeting, thus limiting arbitrary changes in maintenance charges. (Paras 43-44)

Result: Plaintiff's OS dismissed; Defendant's counterclaims partially retained. (Paras 10, 50)

JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff ("P") filed an Originating Summons ("OS") to seek for certain declaratory reliefs against the Defendant ("D"). D in turn filed a counterclaim to seek for certain declaratory reliefs against P ("Counterclaim"). I did not allow P's claim. With respect to the Counterclaim, I allowed some but not all of the reliefs sought for by D. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Plaintiff's Originating Summons

[2]Vide the OS, P prayed for the following:

(i) A declaration that P is entitled to attend and vote at the Third Annual General Meeting of D which is scheduled to be held on 5 June 2022 ("3rd AGM");

(ii) An order that the duly elected Chairman of the 3rd AGM shall not prohibit or prevent P from casting its votes, and shall accept the votes of P in any motion or resolution proposed in the 3rd AGM;

(iii) Alternatively, in the event that this Originating Summons cannot be heard before 5 June 2022, an order that any Annual General Meeting held without the participation of P shall be null and void, of no effect and set-aside;

(iv) A declaration that the Notice of the 3rd AGM dated 12 May 2022 issued by D is irregular, and is therefore null and void;

(v) A declaration that the service of the Notice of the 3rd AGM dated 12 May 2022 issued by D is irregular;

(vi) A declaration that the motions deposited at the registered office of D on 10 May 2022 be included in the agenda of the next Annual General Meeting of D.

[3] The OS was filed by P on Friday 27 May 2022. The subject-matter of the OS is the 3rd AGM that is to be held on the following Sunday on 5 June 2022. As the scheduled date of the 3rd AGM is about a week or so after the filing of the OS, the OS might not be heard before the 3rd AGM takes place. This is recognised in prayer (iii) above of the OS, which contained an alternative prayer in the event that the OS cannot be heard before 5 June 2022. To wit, that any Annual General Meeting of D which is held without the participation of P be declared void.

[4] Anyway on Monday 30 May 2022, P filed an application for an interim injunction vide encl 5 ("Encl 5"). Encl 5 prayed for the following:

(a) D be restrained from holding the 3rd AGM;

(b) D and the duly elected Chairman of the 3rd AGM be restrained from prohibiting or preventing P from casting its votes, and shall accept the votes of P in any motion or resolution proposed in the 3rd AGM.

[5] Encl 5 was fixed for hearing before me on Wednesday 1 June 2022. At that hearing, P requested for an ad interim injunction while they file an affidavit in reply to the affidavit in opposition that had been filed by D. I declined to grant any ad interim injunction as that would have prevented the 3rd AGM from proceeding. Which is tantamount to granting the entire relief sought for by P in Encl 5. Instead, I directed that Encl 5 be heard and disposed of on Friday 3 June 2022 (ie before the 3rd AGM takes place on Sunday 5 June 2022).

[6] At the hearing of Encl 5 on 3 June 2022, I refused prayer (a) above. That is to say, I did not restrain D from holding the 3rd AGM. However, I allowed prayer (b) above. That is to say, I ordered that D and the duly elected Chairman of the 3rd AGM be restrained from prohibiting P from easting its votes at the 3rd AGM. I noted that prayers (a) and (b) above were alternative prayers. Prayer (b) kicks in only if prayer (a) is not granted. But if prayer (a) is granted, prayer (b) naturally falls away.

[7] Later on, I was informed that the 3rd AGM did not take place as scheduled on 5 June 2022. Instead, it was postponed by D to a date that has yet to be determined. Thus, when the OS came up for hearing before me on 26 October 2022, I considered that the reliefs sought for therein had been rendered academic. This is because all the prayers that were sought for in the OS were specifically in relation to the 3rd AGM that was to be held on 5 June 2022, which date had passed. The intitulement of the OS speaks of D's "Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan


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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top