2013 MarsdenLR 2516

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA PARADESA RUSTIKA – Appellant
Versus
SRI DAMANSARA SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-99-12-2012(W)]

The court held that the commissioner lacked jurisdiction to resolve claims regarding sinking funds collected before the enactment of the Building and Common Property Management Act, reaffirming that legislative provisions do not have retrospective application.

Headnote:(A) Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 - Sections 16(1), 16(5), 21(1), and 22(1) - Appeal against Court of Appeal decision that the commissioner lacked jurisdiction to resolve claims on sinking funds - High Court found that the said sum was properly within the commissioner's jurisdiction as part of the Building Maintenance Account. (Paras 4, 14, 19)

(B) Jurisdiction of the Commissioner - The court ruled that the commissioner’s powers are limited to provisions explicitly granted by the Act, and consent by the respondent could not confer additional powers. (Paras 5, 19)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, acting as the Joint Management Body of a condominium, sought to reclaim RM505,722.36 in sinking funds allegedly mismanaged by the developer prior to the formation of the act; the respondent contended these funds were used improperly. (Paras 2, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the Court of Appeal's findings that the commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the sinking fund claims as the applicable provisions of law did not extend retrospectively to the respondent's actions prior to the Act's commencement. (Paras 7, 16)

Issues: The principal issues included the jurisdiction of the commissioner regarding the sinking fund, and whether the respondent was required to maintain accounts for maintenance funds prior to the applicability of the Act. (Paras 4, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the funds in question did not pertain to a Building Maintenance Account as defined in the Act, and the commissioner’s decision lacked validity as the Act’s provisions were not applicable to the respondent’s actions prior to its commencement. (Paras 5, 16)

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.