SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 MarsdenLR 1254

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN SOLARIS DUTAMAS – Appellant
Versus
SURUHANJAYA TENAGA MALAYSIA & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-01(NCVC)(A)-480-09-2020]



Petitioner Advocates:Lai Chee Hoe,Ooi Xin Yi ,Respondent Advocate: John Clark Sumugod,Oh Kei Zuin,Mohd Aiman Syafiq

The Management Corporation's duties under the Strata Management Act are strictly defined, precluding obligations under the Gas Supply Act and its amendments, thereby affirming limits on statutory interpretations.

Headnote:(A) Strata Management Act, 2013 – Sections 59(1), 59(2), 149 – Energy Commission Act, 2001 – Section 14 – Gas Supply Act, 1993 – Gas Supply (Amendment) Act, 2016 – Appellant's application to set aside Energy Commission's directive deemed ultra vires the SMA – Court held that Management Corporation's duties are limited to maintenance and management, without obligations under the amended gas supply legislation. (Paras 19, 59, 66)
(B) Appeal – The duties of a Management Corporation are strictly defined by statutory provisions, precluding extraneous obligations beyond those explicitly mentioned in the law. (Paras 19, 25, 66)

Facts of the case: The appellant, a Management Corporation, opposed the Energy Commission's directive compelling it to manage natural gas supply, arguing such obligations exceeded its scope under the SMA. (Paras 1, 17, 19)

Findings of Court: The court concluded that emboldening the appellant with responsibilities outlined under the gas supply law would contradict the SMA, as they were unrelated to its management duties. (Paras 59, 66)

Issues: Whether the Energy Commission's orders fell within the authority of the Management Corporation as per SMA and if they were consistent with the established legislative framework. (Paras 19, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Management Corporation's statutory powers do not extend to gas supply obligations and must comply strictly with the SMA, disallowing expanded interpretations. (Paras 30, 66)

Result: The appeal was partially allowed, declaring the Energy Commission's orders ultra vires the SMA 2013. (Paras 66)

JUDGMENT

Gunalan Muniandy JCA:

Introduction

[1] The present action commenced by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants ('R1 & R2') by Originating Summons ('OS') was dismissed with no order as to costs. In essence, the OS was to set aside the decision of the Energy Commission ('EC') affecting the appellant which decision was alleged to be ultra vires the Strata Management Act , 2013 (' SMA ').

[2] The above OS was pursuant to the Gas Supply Act 1993; the Gas Supply Regulations, 1997; O 28, Rules of , 2012 ('ROC') and the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964.

Background Facts

[3] The appellant is a Management Corporation ("MC") established under the Strata Titles Act 1985 having an address for service at Level G2, Block D1, Solaris Dutamas, No 1, Jalan Dutamas 1, 50480 Kuala Lumpur.

[4] The 1st respondent is a statutory body established under the Energy Commission Act 2001 and is responsible for regulating the energy sector, specifically the electricity and piped gas supply industries, in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah.

[5] The 2nd respondent is a public listed company with an address for service at No 5 Jalan Serendah 26/17, Seksyen 26, 40732 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan. The 2nd Defendant is involved in the business to sell, market and distribute natural gas as well as to develop, operate and maintain the Natural Gas Distribution System within Peninsular Malaysia.

[6] Solaris Dutamas is a multiple component development area which consists of:

(a) Residential blocks;

(b) Retail outlets;

(c) 1 mall;

(d) 18 office blocks; and

(e) Car parks

[7] Vacant possession of the development area was delivered on or around February 2010. Various businesses were set up at the retail components within Solaris Dutamas, including food and beverage outlets.

[8] Throughout the years since delivering of vacant possession, any parcel owner/proprietor or tenant within the retail component who required the supply of natural gas had dealt with the 2nd respondent directly in procuring natural gas supply. As a result of which an agreement would be entered by the end user with the 2nd respondent for the supply of natural gas.

[9] In entering into an agreement between the parcel owner / proprietor / tenant with the 2nd respondent, the parcel owner/proprietor/tenant is made to pay a fee to the 2nd respondent for primarily supplying natural gas to the parcel and it is the 2nd respondent's duty to maintain the gas supply equipment and pipes.

[10] The appellant was never involved in any supply of gas supply or maintenance of equipment. In fact, the appellant was in no capacity to be involved in delivery of gas or maintaining the equipment.

[11] Over the years, the 2nd respondent had dealt with the end users directly on a contractual basis without going through the appellant since the supply of natural gas to the end users and maintenance of, the equipment at the said development area is solely within the responsibility of the 2nd respondent.

[12] On or around 4 October 2017, the appellant received a letter dated 4 October 2017 from the 1st respondent informing the plaintiff that there had been changes to the Gas Supply Act vide the Gas Supply (Amendment) Act 2016 that brought changes to the licensing activities of the 1st respondent. However, there was no further information provided by the 1st respondent as to the significant changes brought about by the Act.

[13] After the said letter was received, the appellant did not receive any further information or feedback from the 1st respondent.

[14] However, on or around 15 July 2019, the appellant received a letter dated 15 July 2019 from the 2nd respondent requesting the appellant to apply for a retail licence and to take over the management of the natural gas supply to the said Property.

[15] The appellant had voiced its objections to the 2nd respondent as to the need of taking over the supply and management of gas supply which is clearly outside the scope of a management corporation and runs foul of the purview of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top