Back
2012 MarsdenLR 199
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR
PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN STRAITS VIEW – Appellant
Versus
PERMAS JAYA SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: 22NCVC-139-04-2012]
The court affirmed that under the Strata Titles Act, a management corporation has authority to levy contributions from all proprietors, including provisional block owners, regardless of benefits received.
Headnote:(A) Strata Titles Act 1985 - Sections 39, 43, 45, and 53 - Management corporation's right to recover contributions for provisional block - Plaintiff claimed RM1,224,834.95 from defendant for contributions related to Provisional Block, asserting statutory authority under STA 1985 - The court held that the defendant, as the proprietor of a provisional block, is subject to obligations of the management corporation. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Statutory interpretation - The court interpreted the STA 1985 strictly, emphasizing that it cannot read words into the statute unless explicitly permitted to do so, thus affirming the management corporation's authority to levy contributions regardless of service rendered. (Paras 10-12)
(C) Meeting procedure - The 2nd and 3rd AGMs were upheld as valid, determining contribution rates in accordance with statutory requirements under s 45 STA 1985. Despite claims of ultra vires actions during meetings, evidence supported proper conduct. (Paras 20-24)
(D) Notices under s 53 - The requirement for notices prior to filing action deemed non-mandatory; plaintiff's discretion upheld. (Paras 25-28) (E) Interest on contributions - Plaintiff's right to impose interest at the rate of 10% as agreed in AGM. (Paras 34-36)
Findings of Court:
The court entered judgment for the plaintiff for RM793,555.40 plus interest.
Issues: Main issues included the statute's interpretation, the validity of AGM proceedings, and the management corporation's authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The statute required strict compliance and interpretation, affirming statutory authority of management corporations in relation to both services rendered and levying contributions.
Result: Judgment entered for the plaintiff for part of the claim.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of the management corporation under sta 1985 (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. burden of proof on triable issues (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. interpretation and construction of statutes (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. role of the management corporation (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. clarity of statutory language prevents judicial re-writing. (Para 19) |
| 6. compliance with statutory requirements in agms (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 7. compliance with statutory meeting procedures for contributions. (Para 23) |
| 8. discretion of management corporation regarding notices (Para 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 9. defendant's liability for approved contributions (Para 29 , 30) |
| 10. entitlement for just and reasonable contributions (Para 31 , 32) |
| 11. interest entitlement on late payments (Para 33 , 34) |
| 12. no set-off for insurance payments (Para 35) |
[1] The plaintiff is the management corporation of a condominium known as Straits View Condominium, Bandar Baru Permas Jaya ('the condominium') established under s 39 Strata Titles Act 1985 ( STA 1985).
[2] The defendant was the developer of the condominium project.
[3] There are five residential blocks in the condominium project which are currently being managed by the plaintiff, namely Blocks A, B, C, D and F.
[4] The defendant is constructing a new residential block known as Block E ('the Provisional Block'). The Provisional Block is scheduled to be completed in December 2013.
[5] The Provisional Block and the condominium are held under one land title, namely GRN 49159 Lot 52807 Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru. A provisional strata title has been issued in respect of the Provisional Block.
[6] The plaintiff's claim for various contributions amounting to RM1,224,834.95 is premised on ss 43 and 45 STA 1985. The contributions as regards the Provisional Block comprises (i) RM310,171.40 for Sept 2011 - March 2012; (ii) RM483,384.00 for Sept 2010 - August 2011; (iii) RM270,662.69 for Jan 2010 - Aug 2010; and (iv) RM160,616.86 for Aug 2009 - December 2009:
a) Section 43 (2) STA 1985 empowers the plaintiff to, inter alia, (i) recover from any parcel proprietor any sum expended by the plaintiff in respect of that proprietor's parcel; and (ii) collect during the initial period by way of contributions from proprietors in proportion to their share units or provisional share units of their respective parcels or provisional blocks.
b) Pursuant to s 45(1) STA 1985, the plaintiff is required to establish a management fund to manage and administer the common property and discharging any other obligations of the plaintiff.
c) During general meeting, the plaintiff may (for the purposes of subsection (1) of s 45 STA 1985) determine the amounts to be raised and interest payable in respect of late contributions; and levy contribution on the proprietors in proportion to the share units or provisional share units of their respective parcels or provisional blocks.
d) Under s 52 STA 1985, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the contributions from the defendant as a debt due to it.
[7] Upon perusing the affidavits filed by the parties hereto, the court is satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. Accordingly, the burden shifted upon the defendant to show that there are triable issues or defence on merits.
[8] The defendant has objected to the plaintiff's demand for the contributions. The defendant's defence to the plaintiff's application is premised on four principal grounds:
a) On a true construction of s 45 STA 1985, the reference to 'provisional lot' is restricted to a provisional lot which is actually receiving benefit or services from the management corporation and or is inside the area which is managed by the management corporation;
b) The acts of the plaintiff in immediately levying the contributions under s 45(3) STA 1985 during the 2nd and 3rd AGMs (and without prior complying with s 45(3)(a) 1985) are acts that are ultra vires, void and invalid;
c) The plaintiff does not have any valid cause of action against the defe
