Back
2014 MarsdenLR 443
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
NADIA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
YAP KUEE HONG – Respondent
[Suit No: 24NCVC-1584-10-2013]
The court reinforced that house rules in strata living are enforceable and binding on unit owners regardless of their formal adoption as by-laws, emphasizing adherence for community standards.
Headnote:(A) Strata Titles Act 1985 - Sections 39 and 44 - Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 - Sections 4, 8, and 15 - Management corporation's authority to enforce house rules - The court determined that the defendant contravened house rules by altering the external facade without approval, reinforcing that such rules must be observed for maintaining community standards. (Paras 3, 4, 43, 46)
(B) House Rules Validity - Enforceability of house rules independent of by-law status - The court ruled that house rules are enforceable even when not established via a special resolution, highlighting the unique nature of house rules vs. by-laws. (Paras 19, 22, 28)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant conducted unauthorized renovations, altering the Strata Unit's exterior, and did not register the contractor as required by the house rules. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief to restore the original facade. (Paras 3, 5, 46)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the enforceability of the Nadia House Rules and declared that the defendant must comply with its terms regarding the preservation of the building's facade. (Paras 45, 53)
Issues: The court addressed whether the Nadia House Rules are binding despite the absence of a special resolution and whether the defendant's renovations contravened these rules. (Paras 7, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the house rules legitimately govern the conduct of unit owners, and the management corporation has authority to enforce them without requiring additional by-law status, recognizing the integral role of such rules in strata living. (Paras 12, 45)
Result: The plaintiff's claim was allowed, and the defendant was ordered to restore the Strata Unit's facade. (Para 54)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of contract and ownership transfer. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff's allegations of rule violations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. defendant's defenses regarding house rules. (Para 6 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. the validity and binding nature of the dmc house rules. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. influence of new legislation on existing agreements. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. jurisdiction of management corporation over rules. (Para 18 , 24 , 42) |
| 7. purpose and enforceability of jmb house rules. (Para 38 , 40) |
| 8. importance of facade preservation in strata living. (Para 44 , 49) |
| 9. importance of facade preservation in strata community. (Para 45) |
| 10. interpretation and application of house rules. (Para 46) |
| 11. defendant's violations of house rules and responsibilities. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
[1] The plaintiff established under s 39 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (" STA ") is the management corporation responsible for the management of a strata development scheme known as Nadia Park Homes and Condominium ("Nadia") comprising terrace and apartment units as well as parks and common facilities ("the development").
[2] The defendant is the registered strata unit owner of a two storey terrace unit in Nadia known as Unit PH47 ("the Strata Unit"). The chronology of events leading to the defendant's ownership of Strata Unit is as follows:
a. By a sale and purchase agreement dated 8 June 2002 ("the principal SPA") the developer Perdana Parkcity Sdn Bhd ("the developer") sold the Strata Unit to Zameema Banu bt Mohd Ariff and Jaseemuddeen bin Abu Bakar ("the initial purchasers"). Simultaneous with the principal SPA, the initial purchasers had executed a deed of mutual covenant ("DMC") incorporating a set of house rules affecting the Development ("the DMC House Rules").
b. When the defendant bought the Strata Unit from the purchasers, title to the Strata Unit was passed by way of a deed of assignment dated 28 November 2007 ("DOA"), as the individual strata title to the Strata Unit was yet to be issued. The defendant vide the DOA undertook and covenanted to perform and observe all and every of the covenants, stipulations, terms and conditions that were covenanted to be performed and observed by the initial purchasers in the principal SPA between the purchasers and the developer. That would also include the terms of the DMC, as the DMC was entered into pursuant to the Principal SPA. Further cl 27 of the principal SPA provides for common rights of the purchasers/ strata proprietors and stipulates that the developer shall ensure that in the event of any transfer of any strata unit from any initial purchaser to a subsequent purchaser, the subsequent purchaser shall undertake to be bound by the covenants contained in the DMC. The DOA is the mechanism through which this is done.
c. Upon issuance of the strata title the defendant was registered as the owner of the Strata Unit on 17 June 2011.
[3] The plaintiff complains that the defendant had without the plaintiff's approval carried out renovation works to the Strata Unit, in particular at the external patio where the existing sliding glass door was removed and relocated to cover the patio, thus affecting the original external facade of the building. The plaintiff avers that in carrying out this renovation works, the defendant had contravened several clauses of the Nadia House Rules and Regulations ("the Nadia House Rules") in force at the material time, particularly rr 4.6, 5.3 and 7. Now, r 4.6 deals with the preservation of the exterior facade of the building for the purpose of maintaining its aesthetic integrity. Whereas r 5.3 deals with the usage of the electronic access control card issued to the owners/occupants to gain entry through the auto gate at the entrance of the development. Whilst r 7 relates to the process and procedure to be followed by the owners in carrying out renovations to their strata units.
[4] The plaintiff further states that the defendant had failed to register the defendant's appointed co
