The presence and operation of security features in a housing estate do not constitute nuisance if they are supported by the majority of residents, and mere inconvenience does not equate to illegality or obstruction.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the High Court at Shah Alam given on 18 September 2012 dismissing the appellant's claim against the respondent for nuisance and obstruction as well as for injunction; and allowing the respondent's counterclaim for damage to the boom gates and for the order restraining the appellant from harassing the committee members of the RA and the security guard.

[2] In this appeal, the appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondent as the defendant respectively, as the parties were before the High Court.

[3] The plaintiff and his wife are the purchasers and co-owner of a house No 7, Jalan Kenyalang 11/15E, D'Villa Equestrian Housing Estate ("the housing estate"). They purchased the house on 23 November 2006 and moved in on January 2007.

[4] The housing estate was developed by Sunway Damansara Sdn Bhd ("the developer"). There is only one entrance and exit road to the housing estate that is Jalan 11/15. The developer had constructed two boom gates and a guard house on Jalan 11/15 of the housing estate. The developer was responsible for the security and maintenance (including the two boom gates and the guard house) of the housing estate until December 2007.

[5] When the plaintiff and his wife purchased the house in the housing estate, the two boom gates and the guard house were already there and functioning.

[6] The defendant is the Resident Association (RA) of the housing estate and it was registered under the Societies Act 1966 . The plaintiff was a member of the RA and was its Treasurer from May 2009 to March 2010.

[7] It is a fact that beginning January 2008, the residents of the housing estate were required to pay RM250.00 per month to the defendant as security and maintenance charges. This amount was later reduced to RM200.00 per month sometime in August 2009. It is also an undisputed fact that at a meeting held on 21 July 2007, the residents of the housing estate had unanimously agreed that those who do not pay for the security and maintenance charges will have the following consequences:

(i) will raise the drop bar by themselves when entering/exiting;

(ii) will pick up their visitors at the guard house;

(iii) the guards will not intercom them of their impending visitors;

(iv) will not be given car stickers and house gate badges;

(v) in the event the house alarm is triggered off, the guards will not respond to it; and

(vi) guards will not attend to their needs when patrolling and during emergencies.

[8] The plaintiff ceased to be a member of the RA sometime in August 2010 and had since stopped paying the maintenance and security charges.

[9] On 25 August 2011, the defendant issued a circular signed by the Chairman, the Treasurer and the Secretary of the RA, notifying the residents that those who have not paid the security and maintenance charges will have to do a self service entrance; that is to say that they will have to open the boom gates themselves without the assistance of the security guard on duty. For a full impact of that circular, the circular is re-produced below:

"SELF SERVICE ENTRANCE

Following our RA Committee meeting held on 23 October, we have decided to implement a 'self-service' entrance procedure to those residents who have regularly not been paying their monthly fees like the majority of the cooperative and like-minded residents.

The security guards will be instructed NOT to assist in opening of the boom gate into as well as going out to those vehicles belon