The establishment of a Joint Management Body is void if a management corporation has already been legally constituted under the Strata Titles Act.

(f) interest;

(g) costs.

[12] The 1^nd defendant, claiming that it was lawfully constituted, and pleading res judicata and estoppel, counterclaimed for the following reliefs:

(a) a declaration that the general meeting held on 11 September 2011 was valid and in accordance with Act 318;

(b) a declaration that the general meeting held on 15 October 2011 was null and void;

(c) a declaration that the 1^nd defendant was a body lawfully established under Act 663;

(d) an order that any new account or management fund under s 45, or special account under s 46, of Act 318 opened by the 1^st plaintiff pursuant to the general meeting of 15 October 2011 be closed forthwith and all monies in those accounts be paid into the account maintained by the 1^nd defendant;

(e) general damages to be assessed;

(f) exemplary and aggravated damages of RM500,000 or alternatively to be assessed;

(g) interests;

(h) costs.

Decision Of The High Court

[13] The suit was heard in a full trial.

[14] In the learned High Court Judge's 58-page grounds of judgment the facts of the dispute between the parties were set out in great detail, particularly those relating to the general meetings of 11 September 2011 and 15 October 2011.

[15] Her Ladyship held, inter alia, that as the 1^nd defendant came into existence on 5 April 2008 (or on 4 April 2008 as stated in the Grounds of Judgment) pursuant to the 1^st plaintiff 's own act in calling the meeting for the 1^nd defendant's establishment, the 1^st plaintiff was estopped from claiming that the 1^nd defendant's existence was illegal/unlawful.

[16] Her Ladyship also held that estoppel must also operate against the 1^st plaintiff as it had entered into a consent judgment on 28 June 2010 in Suit No: S5-22-868-2008 whereby the 1^st plaintiff had agreed not to prevent the 1^nd defendant from managing the condominium. It had also agreed to surrender all relevant items and documents to enable the 1^nd defendant to perform such management role.

[17] Apart from estoppel, the learned High Court Judge also found that res judicata operated against the plaintiffs as the substance of the present suit was substantially the same as the subject-matter of the 1^st plaintiff 's application for leave for judicial review in Shah Alam High Court in Suit No: MT2-13-2008. Her Ladyship held that as leave was refused, the learned judge hearing the application must have held that the application was frivolous.

[18] The learned High Court Judge then dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and allowed the 1^nd defendant's counterclaim.

[19] That part of the High Court Order dated 14 December 2012 allowing the 1^nd defendant's counterclaim was in the following terms:

ADALAH SETERUSNYA DIHAKIMKAN bahawa tuntutan balas defendan kedua adalah dibenarkan seperti berikut:

(a) Suatu Perintah Deklarasi bahawa Mesyuarat Agung yang diadakan pada 11 September 2011 adalah sah dan selaras dengan Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 (Akta 318);

(b) Suatu Perintah Deklarasi bahawa Mesyuarat Agung yang diadakan pada 15 Oktober 2011 adalah batal dan tidak sah ('null and void');

(c) Suatu Perintah Deklarasi bahawa defendan kedua (Palm Spring JMB) adalah sebuah badan yang sah ditubuhkan di bawah Akta Bangunan Dan Harta Bersama (Penyenggaraan Dan Pengurusan) 2007 (Akta 663);

(d) Suatu Perintah bahawa apa-apa akaun baru atau akaun