Back
2014 MarsdenLR 1612
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
DE TROPICANA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
SOUTH MALAYSIA INDUSTRIES BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 12ANCVC-25-01/2014]
Registered proprietors remain liable for management contributions under the Strata Titles Act despite claims of property sales; estoppel cannot undermine statutory rights.
Headnote:(A) Strata Titles Act 1985 - Sections 43(1), 45(1), 45(3), 45(5), 45(6) - Management Corporation's duty to maintain common properties and recover contributions - Plaintiff Management Corporation seeks RM110,414.94 for overdue contributions from Defendant as registered proprietor of five condominium units. (Paras 2, 7, 9)
(B) Legal duties of registered proprietors - The obligation to recover maintenance charges applies to the registered proprietor regardless of subsequent sales of properties. (Paras 8, 10, 11)
(C) Estoppel and statutory rights - The doctrine of estoppel cannot defeat the statutory rights of Management Corporations under the Strata Titles Act. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff is a Management Corporation seeking overdue management contributions from the defendant, who claims the units are sold, thus denying liability. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The defendant, as registered proprietor, is legally obligated to pay the outstanding contributions, regardless of claims of sale. (Paras 9, 13)
Issues: Whether the registered proprietor is liable for maintenance charges despite selling the units and the applicability of estoppel. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the Management Corporation retains the right to claim outstanding contributions from the registered proprietor and established that estoppel is inapplicable when statutory rights are held. (Paras 10-12)
Result: Plaintiff's appeal allowed; order made to enter judgment against the defendant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff's application and judicial history (Para 3) |
| 3. court's consideration of the appeal's relevance (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. defendant's argument involving ownership transfer (Para 6) |
[1] I shall be referring to the parties herein as they were at the Sessions Court, that is, the appellant as plaintiff and the respondent as defendant.
[2] The plaintiff is a Management Corporation established under the Strata Titles Act 1985 for the De Tropicana Condominium and as a Management Corporation is responsible for the management and maintenance of the common properties of the said Condominium. The plaintiff's claim in the Sessions Court at Kuala Lumpur is for the sum of RM110,414.94 being the management charges, sinking funds and other contributions overdue and payable by the defendant as proprietor for five (5) units or parcels of said condominium together with interest thereon.
[3] By a Notice of Application dated 26 July 2013, the plaintiff applied for an order that the defendant's Statement of Defence be stuck out pursuant to O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of the 2012, and consequently judgment be entered against the defendant. The Learned Session Court Judge on 18 September 2013 dismissed the plaintiff's application. The plaintiff now appeal against that decision to this Court.
[4] I have read the Appeal Records and have given due consideration to the submission of counsel for both parties.
[5] Before I proceed further, I pause here to state that the trial of the plaintiff's suit has already started in the Sessions Court and the defendant's counsel suggested that the present appeal may have become academic. However, I am in agreement with the plaintiff's counsel that the commencement of the trial at the Sessions Court does not in any way prevent this Court from hearing and deciding the appeal. If this Court allows the appeal and strike out the defendant's Statement of Defence, then obviously the on-going trial in the Sessions Court will come to an end. If it is otherwise, then the trial will just go on until its final conclusion.
[6] Coming back to the present appeal, the defendant's defence, in essence, is that the 5 units or parcels of the said condominium were already sold to purchasers and the plaintiff should have made the claim for the maintenance and other charges against those purchasers. In other words, it is the defendant's case that those 5 units do not belong to it but belong to the respective purchasers. In support of its averment, the defendant has produced the sales and purchase agreements between the original owner or developer of the said condominium and the purchasers, including sub-sales - see pp 345 to 412 of the Appeal Records (Volume 3 Part C). The defendant further averred that the plaintiff was aware of the existence of these purchasers. It is further contended by the defendant that even though its name appeared as the registered proprietor in the strata titles to those 5 units, the defendant is merely a bare trustee to the purchasers, and obligated by law, ie, s 40A of the Strata Titles Act, to transfer the strata titles to the respective purchasers. It is therefore the contention of the defendant's counsel that the defendant is not under any obligation whatsoever, in law, to pay for the maintenance and other charges claimed by the plaintiff herein. But the plaintiff's counsel contended otherwise.
