Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2868
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TETAP TIARA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PENGURUSAN PERBADANAN JAYA ONE & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: W-02(IM)(NCVC)-72-01-2022 W-02(IM)(NCVC)-73-01-2022 & W-02(IM)(NCVC)-74-01-2022]
The court ruled that statutory meetings cannot be restrained by injunctions unless valid legal grounds exist, emphasizing the mandatory nature of AGMs and EGMs under the Strata Management Act.
Headnote:(A) Strata Titles Act, 1985 - Section 56 - Strata Management Act 2013 - Section 34 - Interlocutory injunctions - Appeals against High Court orders preventing Annual General Meeting and Extraordinary General Meeting - Court found High Court erred in granting injunctions as AGM and EGM are mandatory under law and cannot be restrained without valid cause. (Paras 22, 28, 34, 40, 46)
(B) Injunctions - Criteria for granting - Court reiterated that for an injunction to be granted, there must be serious issues to be tried, balance of convenience must favor the applicant, and damages must not be an adequate remedy - The Plaintiffs’ claims did not support the injunctions against AGM and EGM. (Paras 23, 24, 46)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from the High Court's decisions allowing injunctions against the Management Corporation's AGM and EGM, which were statutorily required to be held, pending the outcome of civil suits involving maintenance charges. The 2nd Defendant was prevented from voting due to disputed sewerage charges. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 12)
Findings of Court:
The Court allowed the appeals, stating that the High Court's injunctions were unjustified as they infringed upon the statutory rights of parcel owners to hold meetings and vote. The Court emphasized the importance of conducting AGMs and EGMs for the management of the corporation. (Paras 49, 65)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the High Court's injunctions preventing the AGM and EGM, and whether the 2nd Defendant was entitled to vote despite the disputed sewerage charges. (Paras 22, 28, 50)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue injunctions against statutory meetings and that the statutory duty to hold AGMs and EGMs cannot be overridden by the Court. The criteria for granting injunctions were not satisfied as the issues raised did not warrant such orders. (Paras 28, 46)
Result: Appeals allowed with costs to follow the event, High Court orders set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the appeals (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. factual background of the case (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. high court decisions and appeals (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. legal criteria for injunctions (Para 22 , 23) |
| 5. issues with the high court's decision (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. statutory obligations of the management corporation (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. court's authority and statutory provisions (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 8. arguments against injunctions (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 9. court's observations on statutory rights (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 10. findings on the 2nd defendant's appeal (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 11. final decision on the appeals (Para 64) |
Introduction
[1] There are 3 appeals before us and all are being heard together. The 3 appeals are set out as follows;
I. W-02(lM)(NVCV)-72-01/2022 {Appeal 72)
ii. W-02(IM)(NVCV)-73-01/2022 (Appeal 73)
iii. W-02(IM)(NCVC)-74-01/2022 (Appeal 74)
[2] Appeal 72 was filed by the Appellant/2nd Defendant whereas Appeal 73 and Appeal 74 were filed by the 1st Appellant/2nd Defendant, 2nd Appellant/3rd Defendant and 3rd Appellant/7th Defendant respectively.
[3] The Appeals herein are against the whole decisions of the Learned High Court Judge at Kuala Lumpur High Court on 15 December 2021 which allowed an interlocutory injunction to injunct any Annual General Meeting ("AGM") (Appeal 73) and another interlocutory injunction to injunct any Extraordinary General Meeting ("EGM") (Appeal 74) of the Management Corporation ("MC") of the Jaya One Development which was statutorily due to be held by 20 December 2021, pending the disposal of the Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: WA-22 NCVC-425-06/2021 ("Suit 425").
[4] The Appellant/2nd Defendant in Appeal 72 also appeals against the whole decision of the High Court Kuala Lumpur which dismissed the Appellant/2nd Defendant's application to injunct the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant from preventing the 2nd Defendant from voting in the Annual General Meeting or any General Meeting of the Management Corporation of the Jaya One based on the disputed claim for the alleged outstanding sewerage charges pending the disposal of the Suit 425.
[5] For ease of reference we shall refer the parties as they were in the High Court as follows:
i. The Appellant (Tetap Tiara Sdn Bhd) - the 2nd Defendant at the High Court (hereinafter referred to as "the 2nd Defendant")
ii. The 2nd Appellant (Bina Tetap Tiara - the 3rd Defendant at Sdn Bhd) the High Court (hereinafter referred to as "the 3rd Defendant")
iii. The 3rd Appellant (Wong Chee Kooi) - the 7th Defendant at the High Court Hereinafter referred to as "the 7th Defendant")
iv. The 1st Respondent (Pengurusan - the 1st Defendant at Perbadanan Jaya One) the High Court (hereinafter referred to as "the 1st Defendant" OR "the MC")
v. The 2nd to 22nd Respondents - the 1st to 21st Plaintiffs at the High Court (hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiffs")
[6] We heard the appeals and unanimously allowed the Appellants' 3 appeals with costs to follow the event at the High Court. We set aside the High Court Order dated 15 December 2021 and we state our reasons for allowing the Appellants' appeals as below.
Salient Facts
[7] The 1st to 21st Plaintiffs in the main action (Suit 425) are registered proprietors of parcels or individual units held under separate strata titles in Jaya One, a stratified integrated mixed commercial development located in Section 13, Petaling Jaya ("Jaya One Parcel Owners"). The 1st to 21st Plaintiffs also represent 52 other registered proprietors of parcels held under separate strata titles.
[8] The 1st Defendant is the Management Corporation ("MC") of Jaya One established under the Strata Titles Act, 1985 (" STA ") with its registered address at 89-P2, Block H, Jaya One, No 72A Jalan University 46200 Petaling Jaya. The MC is a body corporate having perpetual
