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

2025 MarsdenLR 3584

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SURIA FIRST HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ORS – Appellant
Versus
TRIBUNAL UNTUK PERUMAHAN DAN PENGURUSAN STRATA & ANOR – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: WA-25-499-09/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Tan Jee Sern ,Respondent Advocate: Cindy Chow,Teh I-Vern,Chan Wei Yang

The Joint Management Body has the statutory authority to set maintenance charges, and the burden of proving defective share unit allocation lies with the applicants, which they failed to establish.

Headnote:(A) Strata Management Act 2013 - Section 8 and Section 117(1) - Application for judicial review of Tribunal's decision - No procedural impropriety found in the Tribunal's award dated 17 June 2022, which dismissed claims of defective share unit allocation and excessive maintenance charges - The Tribunal held that applicants failed to demonstrate incorrect allocation or excessive charges, and by law, the Joint Management Body is empowered to determine such charges. (Paras 5, 7, 41)

(B) The burden of proof rests on the applicants to show that the share unit allocation was defective, which they failed to do. (Paras 5d, 41c)

Facts of the case:
The applicants are parcel owners of Ara Hill Condominiums, challenging the Tribunal's dismissal of their claims regarding allocation of share units and maintenance charges. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
The Award was within permissible time guidelines and correctly addressed the applicants' claims under the SMA. No evidence of excessive charges provided and proper channels exist for challenging charges at the next AGM. (Paras 41)

Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing claims on allocation of share units and excessive maintenance charges; if the Tribunal could review the maintenance rate approved at AGM. (Paras 20, 37)

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's decisions were upheld, affirming the JMB's statutory authority in determining charges, and procedural delays were justified. Evidence of claimants must be substantiated. (Paras 29, 38)

Result: Application for judicial review dismissed with costs. (Paras 42)

Table of Content
1. judicial review application context. (Para 1 , 2)
2. claims regarding share units and charges. (Para 3 , 7)
3. legal objections and procedure. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. grounds for judicial review. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. delay in issuing award analysis. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. allocation of share units legality. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
7. determination of maintenance charges. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
8. findings on procedural matters. (Para 41)
JUDGMENT

Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh J:

Brief Factual Background

[1] The applicants are parcel owners of a strata development known as Ara Hill Condominiums located in Ara Damansara, Petaling Jaya. The 1st respondent is the Tribunal for Housing and Strata Management ("the Tribunal") established under the Strata Management Act 2013 (" SMA "). The 2nd respondent is the joint management body ("JMB") of Ara Hill Condominiums.

[2] This is an application for judicial review filed by the applicants to quash the Award of the Tribunal dated 17 June 2022, which dismissed the applicants' claim against the 2nd respondent.

At The Tribunal

[3] The applicants' claim at the Tribunal can be summarised as follows:

(a) Defective allocation of share units; and

(b) Excessive rate of charges imposed by the 2nd respondent on the applicants. As a consequential relief, the applicants also sought a refund of the excessive charges hitherto paid to the 2nd respondent.

[4] In his grounds of Award in dismissing the applicants' claim, the learned President of the Tribunal made the following findings.

Share Unit Allocation

[5] In his findings, the learned President took cognisance that:

(a) Ara Hill Condominiums were offered for sale by the developer prior to the coming into force of the SMA . In the circumstances, s 8 of the would apply. For context, s 8 provides as follows:

(1) Where the sale of a parcel by a developer was made before the commencement of this Act and no share units have been assigned to each parcel by the developer's licensed land surveyors, the share units for each parcel shall be assigned by any person or body who has a duty or is responsible under this Part to maintain and manage any building or land intended for subdivision into parcels and the common property in accordance with the formula set out in the First Schedule, and such assignment shall be deemed to be the allocated share units of each parcel when the assignment is filed with the Commissioner.

(2) The allocated share units assigned to each parcel by the developer's licensed land surveyors or the share units for each parcel assigned pursuant to subsection (1) shall be deemed to be the allocated share units assigned to each parcel for the purpose of this Part until such time as the share units of each parcel have been approved by the Director pursuant to s 18 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 .

(b) The 2nd respondent was informed by the developer of the allocated share units by the developer's land surveyors, and this was in turn informed by the 2nd respondent to the Commissioner of Buildings pursuant to the provisions of the SMA .

(c) There is no duty imposed by the SMA for a JMB or a management corporation ("MC") to verify the correctness of the allocation made by the developer via their land surveyors. The allocated share units assigned by the developer will be deemed correct until the share units are finally approved by the Land Office.

(d) As the applicants were the parties alleging that the share unit allocation is defective, the burden of proof is on them. This can be done by having an alternative land surveyor's report or a calculation of the share units based on the formula provided in the SMA demonstrating that the allocated share units relied on by the 2nd respondent are incorrect.

(e) There was no such evidence adduced by the applicants.

(f) There was a motion in the agenda of the EGM of the 2nd respondent held on 27 January 2018. The issue of the alleged failure to adopt the cor

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