PERANTARA PROPERTIES SDN BHD vs JMC- KELANA SQUARE & ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 MarsdenLR 2376

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PERANTARA PROPERTIES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
JMC- KELANA SQUARE & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Malik Imtiaz Sarwar,Ashok Kandiah,Surendra Ananth ,Respondent Advocate: Su Tiang Joo,R Jeyasingam,Nasema Jalaludheen

Table of Content
1. interpretation of statutory definitions is crucial. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. statutory provisions vs contractual agreement conflict. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court concludes the appellate decision on property rights. (Para 12 , 21)
4. the purposive approach informs statutory interpretation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. legislative intent must respect constitutional property rights. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

David Wong Dak Wah JCA:

Appeal 1326

[1] This appeal raises a short but an important and interesting point relating to the manner as to how provisions in a statute should be construed. The statute in question is the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 ("BCPA 2007").

[2] The relevant factual context in which this dispute is premised on is simply this. The appellant was the developer of Kelana Square which comprised of commercial units and car parks. The respondent is the Joint Management Body of Kelana Square formed under the BCPA 2007.

[3] Upon the forming of the respondent, the appellant handed over to the same various facilities of the development to the respondent save and except the car parks. The reason for the exclusion of the car park

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 MarsdenLR 2376

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAPERANTARA PROPERTIES SDN BHD – AppellantVersusJMC- KELANA SQUARE & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PERANTARA PROPERTIES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
JMC- KELANA SQUARE & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent