Judicial review can correct decisions tainted with illegality and irrationality, especially where statutory provisions on service are misapplied.

Introduction

[1] This is a judicial review application by the Applicant for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st Respondent ("SMT") handed down on 13 July 2022 ("SMT 2022 Decision"). The SMT had dismissed the Applicant's claim vide Form 1 dated 31 July 2018 filed at the SMT via Tribunal Claim No TPSZU-P0250-07/18 ("Applicant's Claim"). The SMT ruled that its earlier decision on Form 20 in the first award dated 20 June 2019 ("SMT 2019 Award") was never decided upon by the Court of Appeal, and thus there is no proof of service of the relevant Form 20.

[2] On 4 April 2023, I allowed the judicial review application. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Judicial Review Application

[3] In the judicial review application herein, the Applicant sought for the following reliefs:

(a) An order of certiorari to quash the SMT 2022 Decision, which had dismissed the Applicant's Claim;

(b) Bhat if prayer (a) above is allowed, the Applicant's Claim is decided by this Court; or

(c) Alternatively, that if prayer (a) above is allowed, the Applicant's Claim is re-heard by another president at the SMT on the basis of merit as ordered in accordance with the Order of the Court of Appeal dated 8 November 2021 ("CA Order").

Parties

[4] The Applicant is a management corporation which manages the strata residential building known as Sunrise Towers.

[5] The 1st Respondent (SMT) is a body established under s 102 of the Strata Management Act 2013 (" SMA 2013"). The SMT has the jurisdiction to hear and determine, amongst others, claims for payment of sums due by the parcel proprietors.

[6] The 2nd Respondent is and has been the proprietor of Unit No 218 at Sunrise Towers ("Parcel") since 1991.

Background Facts

[7] Based on the Applicant's record, the 2nd Respondent has not paid the maintenance charges, sinking fund contribution, quit rent, insurance premium and other charges since he bought the Parcel in the early 1990's.

[8] The 2nd Respondent's default caused the predecessor of the Applicant, ie the Joint Management Body of Sunrise Towers ("JMB"), to initiate a suit against the 2nd Respondent back in the year 2012 for the sum of RM133,868.81, being the outstanding charges, via Penang High Court Civil Suit No: 22NCvC-719-10/2012 ("2012 Suit"). The 2012 Suit was dismissed by the Penang High Court primarily on two technical points, namely:

(a) The JMB has no locus standi to commence the action as the management corporation had come into being on 3 October 2011, ie before the 2012 Suit was filed on 3 February 2012; and

(b) The cause of action of the JMB against the 2nd Respondent was time- barred.

[9] The decision of the Penang High Court in the 2012 Suit was upheld by the Court of Appeal via Rayuan Sivil No P-02(IM)(NCVC)-1113-07/2015.

[10] With the coming into force of the SMA 2013 on 12 June 2015, the management committee of the Applicant was officially formed at the 1st Annual General Meeting of the Applicant on 22 August 2015.

Proceedings Before The Strata Management Tribunal

[11] The Applicant issued a written Notice of Demand in Form 20 dated 4 May 2018 ("Form 20") to the 2nd Respondent for the recovery of a sum of RM66,181.02. This was the outstanding sum for the maintenance /service charges, sinking fund contribution, quit rent, insurance premium, interest payment and other charges for the period from 3 October 2011 to 31 December 2017.

[12] The 2nd Respondent failed to comply with the Form 20. The Applicant then commenced an action via a Statement of Claim in Form 1 dated 31 July 2018 ("Form 1") in Tribunal Claim No TPSZU-P0250-07/18 at the SMT against the 2nd Respondent. The SMT heard the Applicant's Claim against the 2nd Respondent on 8 March 2019, 6 May 2019 and 7 May 2019.

[13] The 2nd Respondent raised several