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

2025 MarsdenLR 1146

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
YONG KEIN SIN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN SPRINGTIDE RESIDENCES & OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: P-02(NCVC)(A)-2408-12-2022 P-02(NCVC)(A)-234-02-2023 & P-02(NCVC)(A)-235-02-2023]



Petitioner Advocates:M Thayalan,Chong Jun Min,Syifa Irdina Sheikh Zulkifli ,Respondent Advocate: Lee Khai,Lee Huai,Teh Chiew Yin

Management corporations cannot impose indemnity by-laws or differential maintenance charges without clear statutory authority, emphasizing community welfare under the Strata Management Act.

Headnote:(A) Strata Management Act 2013 - Sections 59, 60, 70, 106 - Dispute over management corporation's by-law regarding indemnity and differential maintenance charges - High Court's decisions affirmed the validity of said by-law, citing res judicata - Appeals challenged on grounds of legal errors and interpretation of law - Distinction between residential and commercial properties used for different purposes emphasized - Appeals upheld, by-law and differential rates declared invalid. (Paras 1-61)

(B) Legal Interpretation - The Strata Management Act is a social legislation aimed at community welfare; interpretations should favor collective community interests over individual rights. (Para 23)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the management corporation's by-law indemnifying themselves against legal costs and imposing differing maintenance charges against residential and commercial properties, leading to significant legal disputes regarding the lawful authority of the management corporation. (Paras 1-18)

Findings of Court:
The management corporation's by-law regarding indemnity against legal costs and the different rates of maintenance charges imposed on residential versus commercial units were ruled invalid, upholding principles of law that prioritize statutory authority. (Paras 1-61)

Issues: Whether the by-law for indemnity was lawful under the act; whether differential maintenance charges were justified; applicability of res judicata in previous tribunal decisions. (Paras 22-32)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the management corporation’s powers are limited to regulations that facilitate fair and just interactions among parcel owners, invalidating any regulations lacking statutory basis. (Paras 37-43)

Result: Appeals allowed; management corporation's by-law and disproportionate maintenance charges were invalidated. (Para 61)

Table of Content
1. overview of appeals and relevant resolutions. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
Wong Kian Kheong JCA:

A. Introduction

[1] These three appeals (3 Appeals) emanated from three originating summonses (OS) disposed of together in the High Court. We heard together the 3 Appeals, namely-

(1) Civil Appeal No P-02(NCVC)(A)-2408-12-2022 (1st Appeal) had been filed by two co-proprietors of one parcel of Apartment No 8-27-1 [Appellants (1st Appeal)] in a "development area" known as Springtide Residences (Development Area) against the management corporation of the Development Area (MC);

(2) Civil Appeal No P-02(NCVC)(A)-234-02-2023 (2nd Appeal) had been filed by the same appellants in the 1st Appeal against the MC [Appellants (2nd Appeal)]; and

(3) Civil Appeal No P-02(NCVC)(A)-235-02-2023 (3rd Appeal) had been filed by owners of six parcels of apartments in the Development Area [Appellants (3rd Appeal)] against the MC.

[2] A draft copy of this judgment (Draft) had been previously forwarded to Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali and Azhahari Kamal Ramli JJCA. Both my learned brothers had agreed with the Draft.

B. Background B(1). The 1st Appeal

[3] The Development Area consists of two tower blocks [2 Towers (Apartments)] of 74 parcels of apartments (Apartments) and three landed residential four- storey bungalows (Villas).

[4] In the first Annual General Meeting of the MC on 26 April 2013 (1st AGM), a resolution was passed as follows - where any parcel proprietor has breached any By-Law passed by the MC at the MC's AGM and where the MC has incurred any costs, fees or expenses whatsoever in the enforcement of the By-Law, the MC shall recover as a debt on an indemnity basis all such costs, fees or expenses in defending any legal suit brought by the parcel proprietor [By-Law (MC's Indemnity)].

[5] On 25 October 2019, the 1st appellant in the 1st Appeal [1st Appellant (1st Appeal)] filed a claim in the Strata Management Tribunal (SMT) against the MC and Allied Property Services Sdn Bhd (the company which managed the Development Area) (Property Management Co) for an award by the SMT that the MC shall follow the rate of maintenance charges as stipulated in s 60(3) of the Strata Management Act 2013 ( SMA ).

[6] The SMT dismissed the claim of the 1st Appellant (1st Appeal) on the ground that the 1st Appellant (1st Appeal) had claimed against the wrong parties (SMT's Award). The SMT also awarded costs of RM250.00 to be paid by the 1st Appellant (1st Appeal) to each of the MC and Property Management Co [Costs (SMT)]. The 1st Appellant (1st Appeal) had paid the Costs (SMT) to the MC and Property Management Co

[7] The MC issued an invoice dated 1 December 2020 to the Appellants (1st Appeal) for a sum of RM11,234.95 [the amount of legal fees paid by the MC to the MC's solicitors for defending the MC in the claim by the 1st Appellant (1st Appeal) in SMT] [MC's Indemnity Claim (Legal Fees)].

[8] The Appellants (1st Appeal) filed an OS in the High Court (1st Suit) for, among others, a declaration that the By-Law (MC's Indemnity) is invalid under the SMA and/or the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015 (SMR).

[9] The 1st Suit was dismissed by the High Court with costs of RM5,000.00 [High Court's Decision (1st Suit)]. The 1st Appeal was lodged against the High Court's Decision (1st Suit).

[10] According to the High Court's Decision (1st Suit), among others-

(1) the learned High Court Judge relied on-

(a) sections 59(1)(h), (2)(j), (6)(a), 70(2)(g), 77(1) and 143(3) SMA ; and

(b) the High Court's judgment in Chew Chin Tai Lwn. Perbadanan Pengurusan Kondominium Selat Horizon (kand 1) [2015] MLRHU 1007 - to decide that the By-Law (MC's Indemnity) is valid; and

(2) the High Court relied on the judgment of Augustine Paul FCJ in the Federal Court case of Akitek Tenggara Sdn Bhd v. Mid Valley City Sdn Bhd 2007 MarsdenLR 840; ; , at [31] and [32], which held that by virtue of the doctrine of res judicata, the SMT's Award estopped the Appell

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