Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4533
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
NG POH HWA – Appellant
Versus
HIJAUAN KIARA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCvC-632-11/2023]
Striking out of pleadings is justified when claims disclose no reasonable cause of action and are considered an abuse of court process, particularly under the Strata Management Act's constraints on Management Corporations.
Headnote:(A) Strata Management Act 2013 - Section 21 and Section 59 - Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 Rule 19(1) - Applications by Defendants to strike out Plaintiff's Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being an abuse of process - Court reviewed duties and powers of Management Corporation under Statutory provisions and found them limited - Held that the Plaintiff's claim was trivial and legally untenable. (Paras 29, 31, 34)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a developer and long-term resident of Hijauan Kiara, faced issues parking at car park bay P3-27 due to a design flaw after purchasing a unit from D2. He claimed an oral agreement for alternate parking at bay P3-26 was established but later clamped by D1.
Findings of Court:
The court found the applications to strike out were valid as the Plaintiff had no reasonable cause of action against both Defendants and the claim was deemed frivolous and vexatious.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Plaintiff had a reasonable cause of action against D1 and D2 concerning the alleged oral agreement and the resulting disputes over parking bays.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that despite the allegations, the Plaintiff's claims failed as they did not disclose any reasonable cause of action based on the limitations set by the relevant statutory provisions, and therefore, the application to strike out was justified.
Result: Applications allowed; costs awarded to Defendants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applications to strike out the writ. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. conclusion and orders of the court. (Para 2) |
| 3. cause papers for the applications. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. delay in case proceedings. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. salient background facts of the case. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. legal principles for striking out claims. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. d1's arguments against the claim. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 8. final observations on applications. (Para 31 , 34) |
| 9. d2's arguments against the claim. (Para 32 , 33) |
(Encls 12 & 14)
[1] This was an application by the 1st Defendant ('D1') in encl 14 and the 2nd Defendant ('D2') in encl 12 to strike out the Plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim ('SoC') dated 10 November 2023 pursuant to O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 ('RC 2012').
[2] Eventually, I had allowed both applications. Naturally, the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with my decision and is pursuing his right of appeal.
[3] These are my full grounds of judgment.
The Cause Papers
[4] The cause papers in relation to encl 12 are as follows:
(a) the Notice of Application dated 15 February 2024 (encl 12);
(b) D2's Affidavit In Support ('AIS') affirmed by its Director, Datuk Tong Nguen Khoong on 28 February 2024 (encl 13);
(c) the Plaintiff's Affidavit In Reply ('AIR') affirmed on 20 March 2024 (encl 16); and
(d) D2's AIR affirmed by the same deponent on 4 April 2024 (encl 17).
[5] The cause papers in respect of encl 14 are as follows:
(a) the Notice of Application dated 19 March 2024 (encl 14);
(b) D1's AIS affirmed by its Chairman, How Wei Thing on 19 March 2024 (encl 15);
(c) the Plaintiff's AIR affirmed by the Plaintiff on 19 April 2024 (encl 18); and
(d) D1's AIR affirmed by its Chairman, Justin Chin E-Loong on 8 May 2024 (encl 19).
[6] It would be an accurate observation that the instant applications have long been pending in this Court. This is due to the fact that upon the retirement of the previous Judge, the post was left vacant for approximately six months. When the case was first called up before me on 3 October 2024, I was of the view that this case was suited for mediation and the learned counsels who appeared for all the parties were optimistic that the parties would agree to a mediation before me.
[7] Unfortunately, my attempt to resolve the dispute after two mediation sessions was not successful and I then proceeded to give the decision for encls. 12 and 14.
Salient Background Facts
[8] Upon perusal of the SoC, the salient background facts are as set out below.
[9] The Plaintiff is an established developer and director and a long-standing resident of Hijauan Kiara Condo ('Hijauan Kiara').
[10] D1 is a Management Corporation ('MC') established under the Strata Management Act 2013 [Act 757] (' SMA 2013') for the purpose of administering and managing the common properties. D1 is the registered owners of the common properties of Hijauan Kiara.
[11] D2 is a company incorporated in Malaysia with an address at Penthouse, Block B-13A-P1, Plaza Mont Kiara, Mont Kiara, 50480 Kuala Lumpur.
[12] D2 is the registered and beneficial owner of a piece of freehold land held under GM 1063 and GM 4630, Lots 2374 and 2373 both in Mukim Batu, District of Kuala Lumpur ('said Land').
[13] D2 undertook the development of the said Land into a housing development with common facilities known as Hijauan Kiara complete ('said Development').
[14] By way of a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 15 April 2005 ('SPA'), the Plaintiff purchased Unit E-5-1 from D2 ('said Property').
[15] Pursuant to the terms of the SPA, the Plaintiff was given three accessory parcels as car park bays and one private lift lobby as follows:
(a) A545 and A544 - two car park bays at Level P5 (P5-15 and P5-16);
(b) A432 - one car park bay at Level P3 (P3-27); and
(c) A635 - private lift lobby.
[16] After D2 had handed over vacant possession of the said Property on 28 February 2008 to the Plaintiff, including the car park bays, the Plainti
