Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5327
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
CASA VENICIA JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY – Appellant
Versus
IDEAL HEIGHTS PROPERTIES SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: BA-22NCvC-81-02/2022]
The court determined that the Clubhouse is not part of common property and that the joint management body possesses the legal standing to sue the Developer based on evidence of misrepresentation and contractual obligations.
Headnote:(A) Strata Management Act 2013 - Section 143(2) - Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 - Sections 7, 21 - Titles to land - Joint management body asserting title to land claimed as common property - Developer registered as proprietor of land - Court found Clubhouse not common property due to evidence and contracts - Equitable estoppel invoked for continued license use of Clubhouse by residents. (Paras 1, 11, 43, 55)
(B) Locus Standi - Joint management body established under legislation - Capacity to sue for common property - Plaintiff entitled to claim due to adverse actions by the Developer regarding common property. (Paras 12, 16, 20)
(C) Misrepresentation - Developer misrepresented usage of Clubhouse as common property - Evidence supported that representations were made but did not affect title. (Paras 40-42)
(D) Contractual obligations - Supplementary Agreement does not contradict rights in SPAs; grants perpetual license for Clubhouse usage. (Paras 47-48) (E) Re-development - Developer restrained from demolishing Clubhouse without compensating owners for deprivation of equity. (Paras 54, 55)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claiming title to common property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. developer's ownership and redevelopment proposal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. locus standi of the plaintiff under sma. (Para 13 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. management corporation and title ownership. (Para 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 5. sub-division and registration of titles. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. definitions of common property. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. fraudulent misrepresentation in property claims. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 8. validity of agreements regarding property rights. (Para 43 , 46 , 47) |
| 9. rights of purchasers to use clubhouse. (Para 50 , 52 , 53) |
| 10. final judgment and orders. (Para 55) |
Introduction
[1] In this action, the Casa Venicia Joint Management Body ("Plaintiff") invoked s 143(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 (" SMA ") to sue the 1st Defendant ("Developer") on behalf of some or all parcel owners in the strata development, essentially to claim title to land on which the Developer had constructed a clubhouse and facilities ("Clubhouse"), on grounds that the Clubhouse is part of the common property of the strata development.
[2] The problem is that the Developer is the registered proprietor of the Clubhouse land, a fact that the Plaintiff says it was unaware of until 2021. In 2021, the Developer proposed to re-develop the Clubhouse land and build a 33-storey service apartment tower there. This entails demolishing the clubhouse building, a swimming pool, jogging paths and foot bridges over parts of the lake.
Background Facts
[3] The Clubhouse is part of a larger development called Casa Venicia Lakeview Condominium Bukit Idaman, comprising Blocks A, B, C, D, E, F, G (Greenview Condo), H (Greenview Tower), Casa Venicia Tower and Clubhouse, all constructed around a man-made lake ("Development").
[4] The sale and purchase agreements for the individual parcels of condominium units in the Development were standard Schedule H form of contracts per reg 11 of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 made under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 ("HDA").
[5] Based on specimen sale and purchase agreements tendered in evidence, the original purchasers signed the standard sale and purchase agreement ("SPA") together with a supplementary agreement relating to the use of the Clubhouse ("Supplementary Agreement") with the Developer. These were mostly signed in the 1990s before the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 ("BCPA") came into force on 12 April 2007 and well before the SMA came into force in Selangor on 1 June 2015.
[6] The Plaintiff was formed on 29 March 2008 under s 7(2) of the BCPA (now repealed) in respect of HS(M) 12917, HS(M)12982, HS(M)12983 and Lot PT No 21623, 21688 and 21689 which, as determined in the course of the trial, corresponded to Blocks A-G of the Development. It is also recognized as the joint management body of the Casa Venicia Tower block at HS(H) 20553 PT No 34410.
[7] The original 4 master titles comprised in the Development have undergone a series of amalgamation and sub-divisions into the 7 separate titles that exist today. The Development currently sits on these 7 separate titles as follows (collectively, the "Development Lands"):
[8] On 1 August 2014, the Plaintiff and the Developer entered into a Clubhouse/Community Centre/Facilities Operation and Management Agreement ("Clubhouse Management Agreement") by which the Plaintiff was obliged to manage these facilities, bear all operational costs of the facilities and pay the Developer RM1.00 annually. The recital in the Clubhouse Management Agreement states that:
IDEAL HEIGHTS PROPERTIES SDN BHD has at its sole cost and expense constructed a clubhouse, community center, swimming pool, wading pool, gazebo, children playground, compound lighting, theme garden,.barbeque pit and other common properties and facilities ("the Facilities") and is: the proprietor and/or
