Judicial review grounds such as illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety must be diligently supported by evidence, without which the court may dismiss the review.

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

[1]These five applications for judicial review were heard together, seeking this court to quash the award of the second respondent.

Background

[2]The applicant is the Management Corporation of the development area known as Subang Perdana Goodyear Court 3, Court 4 and Court 5. The first respondent is a resident of Subang Perdana Goodyear Court 4.

[3]There was a total of five applications for judicial review before this court involving the same parties, against five distinctive awards awarded by the second respondent, details of which are as follows:

(i)in case BA-25-46-07/2023 (“No. 46”), the applicant sought a prayer of declaration and certiorari to quash the award given vide Claim No.: TPS/B-5078-11/2022 through which the first respondent prayed for “The Management Corporation to provide two security guards for Subang Perdana Court 4, one for day shift and another for night shift within one month from the date of order/award for compliance with subsections 70(1) & (2)60(3)(b) Strata Management Act 757Court 4 and to utilise the accumulated amount of short change of guard service for reinstatement of refuse chambers and repavement of all the roads at Court 4” (“Claim No. 5078”);

(ii)in case BA-25-47-07/2023 (“No. 47”), the applicant sought a prayer of declaration and certiorari to quash the award given vide Claim No.: TPS/B-5080-11/2022 through which the first respondent prayed for “The Management Corporation to provide an additional cleaner for Subang Perdana Court 4 within one month from the date of order/award for compliance with subsection 59(1)(a) Strata Management Act 757Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution due to inadequate manpower, unequal distribution of resource and compromising the cleaning service at Court 4 and to utilise the accumulated amount of the short change for repavement of all the roads at Subang Perdana Court 4” (“Claim No. 5080”);

(iii)in case BA-25-48-07/2023 (“No. 48”), the applicant sought a prayer of declaration and certiorari to quash the award given vide Claim No.: TPS/B-5081-11/2022 through which the first respondent prayed for “The Management Corporation to reinstate three numbers of proper refuse chamber at Subang Perdana Court 4 for replacement of the original refuse chambers which have been demolished by the Management Corporation within Three (3) months from the date of order/award for compliance with their own House Rules, Local Authority By-Laws, Strata Management Regulations 2015, Strata Management Act 757, Selangor Planning Guidelines, Environmental Quality Act 127, Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 118 and in accordance with the proposal and design of the Claimant and By-Law 121 of Uniform Building By-Laws 1984” (“Claim No. 5081”);

(iv)in case BA-25-49-07/2023 (“No. 49”), the applicant sought a prayer of declaration and certiorari to quash the award given vide Claim No.: TPS/B-5082-11/2022 through which the first respondent prayed for “The Management Corporation to repave all the roads at Subang Perdana Court 4 which are having very poor pavement conditions and have not been repaved for more than seventeen (17) years within four (4) months from the date of order/award for compliance with Sections 59 (1)(a)61(2)51(2)(d) Strata Management Act 757

(v)in case BA-25-50-07/2023 (“No. 50”), the applicant sought a prayer of declaration and certiorari to quash the award given vide Claim No.: TPS/B-5083-11/2022 through which the first respondent prayed for “The Management Corporation to repaint all the stai