The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to compel a developer to provide documents to an individual parcel owner, as such rights are vested in the Joint Management Body under the Strata Management Act 2013.

Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court which dismissed a judicial review application to quash the award of the Strata Management Tribunal - which included compelling the appellant developer to supply certain documents and information to a parcel owner, the second respondent in this appeal.

[2] Having examined the appeal records and considered the submissions of parties, we unanimously decided to allow the appeal principally by reason of the lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make such an award. This judgment contains the full grounds for our decision.

Key Background Facts

[3] The appellant is the developer of the development project known as Infinity Tower ("the Project"). The first respondent is the Strata Management Tribunal ("the Tribunal") established under s 102 of the Strata Management Act 2013 ("the SMA 2013"). The second respondent company is the purchaser of two parcel units in Infinity Tower.

[4] The second respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant at the Tribunal under reg 6 of the Strata Management (Strata Management Tribunal) Regulations 2015. This was initiated by the second respondent on the 18 June 2019, which was a date after the establishment of the Joint Management Board ("the JMB").

Award Of Tribunal & Judicial Review At The High Court

[5] The Tribunal delivered its award which allowed most of the claims made by the second respondent, which essentially ordered, inter alia, that first, the appellant developer to furnish financial records including a specified AmBank account bank statement from the date the account was opened until the account was closed in respect of the maintenance account and sinking funds account.

[6] Secondly, the award also allowed the second respondent access to the accounting software and electronic filing under CSS Decision Sdn Bhd which was used by the appellant since 8 October 2019 for forensic audit purposes. And thirdly, the appellant was also compelled to furnish all the plans approved by the local authorities for the lower ground related to ingress basement carpark in respect of the Project.

[7] This award was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant by way of a judicial review. The award and the subsequent dismissal of the judicial review by the High Court on 6 December 2022 form the subject of this instant appeal.

Principal Grounds Of Appeal

[8] Before us, the appellant submitted the following two key grounds of appeal in its pursuit to quash the award of the Tribunal. The first concerned what the appellant described as procedural impropriety committed by the Tribunal which infringed the appellant's right to be heard.

[9] This, according to the appellant was because new issues, which were decisive to the outcome of the Tribunal proceeding were raised by the second respondent during the hearing proceedings at the Tribunal but that the appellant was not given the opportunity to properly respond to the said new issues.

[10] Secondly, the Tribunal was argued to have committed serious error of law and facts which rendered its award irrational or illegal. On this, the appellant repeated the alleged breach of natural justice which ought to render the award illegal.

[11] But relevant to this, in addition to the argument that the ownership, custody, care and control of the documents sought by the second respondent had in fact claimed by the appellant to have already been passed to the JMB, the appellant also advanced the argument - especially important in this appeal - that whilst the T ribunal has the power to grant an order to compel the appellant to supply documents, it has no jurisdiction to make such order in favour of any individual parcel owner, and in any event more so after the JMB has already been incorporated.

[12] It was argued by the appellant that the Fourth Schedule to the SMA 2013 must be read together with other provisions in the Act to determine the scope of the Tribunal's jurisd