JUDGMENT

Noor Hayati Haji Mat J:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant/defendant against the decision of the Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) given on 17 October 2024 in allowing the respondent's/plaintiff's application to strike out Armanee's counterclaim under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC).

[2] Having heard both parties, perused the Appeal Record, and read the submissions, I allowed the appeal with costs. The case was remitted back to the Sessions Court for the appellant to proceed with their counterclaim against the respondent.

[3] Below are my grounds of judgment.

The Case Background

[4] Burgess Rawson Management Sdn Bhd (Burgess) is a company which carries on the business of property management and offers consultancy services to joint management bodies. Armanee Condominium Joint Management Body (Armanee) is the joint management body for Armanee Condominium, responsible for the management and maintenance of the condominium.

[5] In January 2011, Armanee appointed Burgess to provide management services, and a Service Agreement was signed on 13 January 2011 by both parties, outlining the contractual duties (see Appendix A of the Service Agreement).

[6] The key terms of the Service Agreement are that the monthly property management fees are RM15,000.00. Upon termination or expiry of the agreement, Burgess' appointment will continue on a month-to-month basis under the terms of the contract.

[7] On 10 March 2023, Armanee issued a letter to Burgess informing them that the appointment on a monthly basis would cease on 31 March 2023.

[8] Burgess filed an action at the Sessions Court claiming a total of RM339,393.42 from Armanee for the management fees allegedly owed. The sum includes overtime costs/allowances, undercharged staff costs and other charges.

[9] Armanee filed its defence and counterclaim against Burgess for its failure to perform its contractual duties. They assert, inter alia, that Burgess had breached its contractual obligations by failing to collect maintenance fees from the previous owner before allowing the transfer of the unit to the new buyer, in breach of cl 3.4 of the Service Agreement. This failure resulted in a loss for Armanee amounting to RM12,472.12. Further, it was alleged that, due to a large amount of uncollected maintenance fees and sinking funds, Armanee was forced to appoint a credit controller to assist in their collection, at a cost of RM50,544.00. Further, it was submitted that, due to Burgess's poor record keeping, Armanee had to appoint an accounting firm to resolve the accounting issues, which had cost them RM66,960.00.

[10] Armanee listed a few other allegations of breaches by Burgess in the management of the condominium and prayed for a sum of RM556,387.85 as special damages in their counterclaim.

[11] Burgess filed encl 7 on 4 April 2024 for a summary judgment under O 14 of the ROC. Encl 7 was allowed by the SCJ on 30 May 2024. Armanee appealed to the High Court . Justice Elaine Yap heard the appeal and decided, on 7 March 2025, to allow the appeal partially, whereby the sum claimed was reduced to RM308,293.45.

[12] Prior to the decision of the appeal, after summary judgment was recorded before the SCJ, Burgess filed another application, Enclosure 35 on 21 June 2024, to strike out Armanee's counterclaim. This was heard and decided by the SCJ on 17 October 2024. It was allowed, hence this appeal before me.

Analysis And Findings

[13] The SCJ allowed Burgess' application to strike out Armanee's counterclaim on the ground that the determination of the summary judgment had consequently disposed of the counterclaim.

[14] Armanee's main contention in this appeal was that the SCJ failed to appreciate the nature of the application before him, which was a striking out application and not for summary judgment.

[15] This argument was based on the notes of the proceeding (e-review) on 17 October 2024, where the SCJ states that the application for striking out was allowed solely on the grounds that th