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

2014 MarsdenLR 1130

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MEDICAL OFFICE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION BLOCK – Appellant
Versus
PARKWAY LIFE MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: 22NCVC-174-04-2014]



Management corporations can recover unpaid charges from new owners per statute, but only those specified and within the limitation period; excess claims are barred.

Headnote:(A) Strata Titles Act 1985 - Section 45(5) and Limitation Act 1953 - Management corporation claims against new owner for unpaid charges of previous owner, totaling RM1,810,304.71, are valid under statute. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 12, 23)

(B) Limitation Period - Claim for charges prior to 11 April 2008 is barred due to limitation, as the debt was discovered later. (Paras 7-12)

(C) Powers of Management Corporation - The management corporation cannot recover charges exceeding those mandated under the statute and must cover expenses through contributions to the management fund, which cannot include separated charges for utilities and insurance. (Paras 14-22)

(D) Recovery of Charges - Management corporation is allowed to recover unpaid service charges incurred by the developer prior to its establishment. (Paras 24-28)

Facts of the case:
The management corporation sought recovery of unpaid charges from the defendant, who purchased property and was alleged to bear responsibility for the charges of the prior owner. (Paras 1-8)

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that charges prior to establishing the management corporation could not be recovered, but allowed claims for existing service debts. The defendant is liable. (Paras 12, 23, 28)

Issues: The court addressed whether claims were time-barred, if recovery for additional utility charges was permissible, and if charges prior to corporation establishment could be recovered. (Paras 4, 12, 23)

Ratio Decidendi: The management corporation's powers are limited to those defined in statute, and claims based on expenses are restricted to those outlined by the law, establishing clear limits on financial obligations following property transactions. (Paras 22-28)

Result: Balance sum of RM105,083.00 is recoverable by the management corporation.

Table of Content
1. management corporation pursuit for unpaid charges. (Para 1 , 5)
2. statutory liability of new owner for unpaid charges. (Para 2 , 16 , 18)
3. defendant's application for determination of legal questions (Para 3)
4. limitation period for claims on unpaid charges. (Para 4 , 8 , 22)
5. claim limitation per section 6 of limitation act 1953 (Para 6 , 7)
6. clarification on limits of management corporation powers. (Para 12 , 21)
7. strata titles management corporation powers (Para 14 , 15)
8. management corporation recovery of charges (Para 20)
9. entitlement to recover charges by management corporation (Para 23)
10. recovery of unpaid charges from developer's period (Para 24 , 25 , 27)
11. final claim and costs determination (Para 28)

[1] The defendant purchased the whole of the 8th floor within an office complex on 1 August 2012. The management corporation subsequently discovered that the previous owner from whom the defendant had purchased the said property had not settled in full some charges levied on it. In this action, the management corporation, seeks to recover these charges from the defendant which included, service charges, quit rent, electricity and insurance premiums, amounting to RM1,810,304.71.

[2] The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is predicated on s 45(5) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 which renders the new owner statutorily liable for any unpaid charges of the previous owner as the successor in title. It provides:

"Any contribution levied under subsection (3) in respect of a parcel shall be due and payable on the passing of a resolution to that effect by the management corporation and in accordance with the terms of that resolution, and may be recovered as a debt from a proprietor of, or his successor in title to, the parcel."

The Application

[3] This is the defendant's application pursuant to O 14A Rules of 2012 to determine questions of law arising from the plaintiff's pleaded case against it based on a statement of agreed facts in support of the application as set out at para 5.

[4] The three questions framed for the Court's determination are as follows:

(a) Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the period prior to 11 April 2008 is barred under s 6 Limitation Act 1953 because the claim arose more than six years prior to the date filing of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant?;

(b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant the amount of RM876,453.01 which is over and above and or exceed the total contributions to the management fund under the provisions of the Strata Titles Act 1985 ?; and

(c) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to charge and or recover any amount for the period prior to its establishment as management corporation ie before 1 November 2006?

Statement Of Agreed Facts

[5] The statement of agreed facts filed by the parties was in these terms:

i. The plaintiff, Perbadanan Pengurusan Medical Office Block, is a management corporation of a development project known as "Medical Office Block" which has an address at No 282, Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur, and was incorporated under the Strata Titles Act 1985 ;

ii. The plaintiff was incorporated on 1 November 2006, and the management of "Medical Office Block" was only handed over to the plaintiff on 30 September 2009;

iii. The defendant had purchased the defendant's unit from Gleneagles Medical Centre (Kuala Lumpur) Sdn Bhd ("Gleneagles") and had since 1 August 2012 became the registered owner of the whole 8th floor and the accessory parcels in the Medical Office Block ("defendant's unit");

iv. At a material times, Gleneagles was also the developer of Medical Office Block;

v. The defendant had vide a letter from its solicitors dated 12 July 2012 to the plaintiff enquired whether there was any outstanding sum that is due and payable in respect of the defendant's unit;

vi. The plaintiff vide its solicitors replied in a letter dated 3 August and informed the defendant that there were some outstanding sums that Gl

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top