Back
2010 MarsdenLR 1878
HIGH COURT KUALA LUMPUR
UDA HOLDINGS BERHAD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
BUMI GAJAH AGENCIES SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No. R3-12B-1042-2010]
Service charge liability under a Sale and Purchase Agreement is not conditional on unit occupancy or facility usage; it is a strict liability enforced by law and defined agreements.
Headnote:(A) Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 - Section 23 - Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 15.12.1993 - Claim for service charges - Respondent purchased unit but claimed non-payment due to defects; Court emphasized strict liability for service charges despite non-occupancy (Paras 5, 23).
(B) Breach of Sale and Purchase Agreement - The issue of the leaking roof was a structure defect, not maintenance failure by Joint Management Body; respondents are precluded from disputing service charges based on this defense (Paras 36, 42).
(C) Proper Maintenance - Complaints regarding service quality do not exempt respondents from paying owed charges, especially when others complied (Paras 45, 50).
Facts of the case:
The appeal is by the appellants against the dismissal of their claim for RM84,106.90 in service charges owed by the respondent; respondent allegedly never inhabited the unit due to deplorable conditions.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, ruling that respondents must pay the claimed service charges, emphasizing the statutory nature of this obligation (Paras 62, 63).
Issues: The court addressed whether the respondent is liable for service charges despite arguing defective conditions of the unit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that service charge liability is not conditional on occupancy or utilization of the unit or facilities, and prior breaches are not a valid defense against payment obligations.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment entered for the appellants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. liability to pay charges is strict regardless of occupancy. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. obligation to pay service charges established. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. claims of defective maintenance are invalid. (Para 4 , 6) |
The appellants'/plaintiffs' appeal is against the judgment of the learned Session Court Judge given on 27.8.2010 in dismissing with cost the appellants' claim for RM84,106.90 being arrears of service charges and other relevant charges allegedly due and owing by the respondent/defendant to the appellants.
Background facts
Vide a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 15.12.1993 entered into between the 1st appellant and the respondent, the respondent/defendant purchased Unit No. 20-36-1 of Angkasa Impian Condominium (the unit), Persiaran Raja Chulan, Kuala Lumpur. Clause 5.11 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement imposed an obligation on the respondent to pay service charges and other charges for services provided by the 1st appellant/developer for the upkeep of common property and maintenance of the condominium. Common property and service charges have been defined under the agreement. What transpired later on is this. Upon taking vacant possession of the unit on 12.8.1996, the respondent found the roof to the unit was leaking. Attempts to rectify the leaking roof problem failed. So much so, the respondent alleged the condition of the unit is deplorable and not habitable. The respondent never occupied the unit from the day they took vacant possession right up to the hearing of this case in 2010.
The respondent then filed an action against the 1st appellant/developervide High Court Civil Suit No.S1-21-205-2005, claiming inter alia for cost of repairs and damages for loss of use of the unit as well as damages for defective works. The suit was settled with the 1st appellant buying back the said unit from the respondent and consent judgment entered on 23.4.2010 for RM1.5 million. Para (b) (i) to the said consent judgment is relevant to this appeal and it reads:
(b) Jumlah RM1.5 juta tersebut hendaklah dibayar kepada Peguamcara Plaintif Tetuan N.J Pillay & Co sebagai pemegang taruhan dan hendaklah digunakan untuk penyelesaian semua pembayaran-pembayaran yang kena dibayar berkaitan hartanah tersebut termasuk :
(i). Semua bayaran perkhidmatan cukai tanah, cukai taksiran, caj air, caj bekalan letrik, caj Indah Water dan lain-lain bayaran yang kena dibayar kepada badan pengurusan bangunan Kondominium Angkasa Impian, Pemaju dan/ atau Pihak Berkuasa berkenaan.
Although the suit was settled, the position taken by the respondent is they refuse to pay the service and maintenance charges as they could never live in the unit and hence could not enjoy the services and facilities provided. Consistent to the stand taken, the respondent's pleaded defences are:
(1) The appellants have breached the Sale and Purchase Agreement.
(2) The appellants have failed to service and maintain the common areas of the condominium in the followings:
(a) Bahawa kawasan bumbung tidak dibersihkan;
(b) Bahawa pembekalan air tidak baik;
(c) Bahawa lampu-lampu di kebanyakan kawasan- kawasan umum di kondominium tersebut tidak dinyalakan pada waktu malam;
(d) Bahawa lantai di kawasan-kawasan umum tidak disapu dan/atau tidak dilapkan;
(e) Kawasan tangga umum tidak dibersihkan dan/atau disapukan;
(f) Bahawa pungutan sampah hanya dilakukan sekali- sekala dan sistem sekuriti di kawasan-kawasan umum tidak memuaskan.
The Session Court Judge found in favour of the respondent. This can be seen in her grounds of judgment wherein she states:
1. Bumbung sememangnya diniatkan oleh pihak-pihak untuk menjadi sebahagian daripada "common property".
2. Plaintif-plaintif telah gagal menyelenggarakan "common property".maka defendan tidak lagi bertanggungan membayar caj-caj penyelenggaraan. Tambahan pula, defendan tidak pernah menduduki dan menikmati unit tersebut.
Grounds of appeal
The learned Session Judge is said to have erred in fact and law in:
1. deciding the respondent do not have to pay the
