JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] On 19 June 2024, the Applicant filed this application for judicial review. On 15 January 2025, I dismissed the judicial review application. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[2] The Applicant is the joint management body of Centrio Avenue. The 1st Respondent is the Strata Management Tribunal ("SMT"). The 2nd Respondent is a unit owner at Centrio Avenue.

[3] On 2 May 2023, a pipe burst caused water leakage at the 2nd Respondent's unit. It necessitated urgent repair work to be carried out ("repair pipe leakage work"). The 2nd Respondent had to pay a deposit of RM1,000.00 ("deposit") to the Applicant, before the repair pipe leakage work was permitted to be carried out.

[4] The 2nd Respondent instituted an action at the SMT to compel the Applicant to refund the deposit. The 2nd Respondent claims that the Applicant had forced her to pay the deposit. Notwithstanding that the nature of the repair work is merely to repair pipe leakage, which does not require payment of deposit.

[5] Nevertheless, the Applicant insisted that the deposit be paid before it would permit the repair pipe leakage work to commence. The 2nd Respondent had no choice but to comply with the demand of the Applicant.

[6] The 2nd Respondent maintains that the deposit should only be imposed if the nature of the work involves renovation works. But not for repair works (in this instance, the repair pipe leakage work) which needed to be carried out urgently.

[7] After completion of the repair pipe leakage work, the 2nd Respondent requested that the deposit be refunded to her. The Applicant refused to do so.

[8] Consequently, the 2nd Respondent filed an action at the SMT to seek a refund of the deposit. The Applicant in turn filed a counterclaim against the 2nd Respondent for an order to compel her to "re-do all her repair work in a way that does not change the exterior facade of her house".

[9] The Applicant's refusal to refund the deposit was based on the following grounds:

(a) the repair pipe leakage work carried out by the 2nd Respondent has changed the exterior facade of her unit;

(b) the 2nd Respondent did not abide by the Applicant's bye-laws;

(c) the deposit will only be refunded if the 2nd Respondent complies with the piping specification given by the Applicant.

(On this aspect, it is noted that no notice was served by the Applicant to the 2nd Respondent stating that the repair pipe leakage work has changed the exterior facade of her unit).

[10] The 2nd Respondent contends that the payment of deposit was not necessary as she only carried out repair works involving piping leakage. The repair pipe leakage work only took approximately 2 hours.

[11] The 2nd Respondent denies the Applicant's allegation that the repair pipe leakage work carried out by her has changed the exterior facade of her unit. In her affidavit, the 2nd Respondent exhibited similar piping works that had been carried out by other units. To-date, no action has been taken against those other units.

The Decision Of The Strata Management Tribunal

[12] After hearing both parties, the SMT ordered that the deposit be refunded to the 2nd Respondent. Further, the SMT dismissed the Applicant's counterclaim.

[13] In its grounds of judgment, the SMT made the following observation:

"7. Tribunal berpendapat pertikaikan antara PYM [Pihak yang Menuntut] dan PP [Pihak Penentang] boleh di bahagikan kepada dua bahagian yakni:

(i) keperluan Deposit; dan

(ii) kerja yang menyebabkan penukaran facade luaran unit PYM."

[14] The SMT made the following findings:

"8. Setelah meneliti peraturan peraturan yang telah di kemukakan sebagai bukti, Tribunal berpendapat bahawa Deposit hanya di wajibkan bagi kerja-kerja ubah suai ("Renovation Works" - sila lihat peraturan "Renovation Rules & Regulations"). Dalam konteks fakta-fakta kes ini, Tribunal seterus nya berpendapat bahawa kerja-kerja yang di cadangkan dan di buat oleh PYM ada lah kerja baik pulih yang terdesak (urgent repair works) akibat