Judicial review applications require clear identification of grounds such as illegality and irrationality; failure to substantiate claims leads to dismissal.

Headnote:(A) Strata Management Act 2013 - Sections 59(1)(a), 61(2), 120, and 121 - Judicial review applications - The applicant sought to quash various awards demanding compliance actions from the Management Corporation - The court affirmed the Tribunal’s authority to order an EGM, asserting no illegality or irrationality in the decisions - The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for judicial review, resulting in the dismissal of the applications. (Paras 8, 12, 37)

(B) Grounds of Judicial Review - The standard for judicial review encompasses illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and proportionality - The court highlighted that the applicant did not adequately support its claims with particulars nor substantiate allegations against the Tribunal's decisions. (Paras 21, 26)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Management Corporation, sought judicial review of awards directing it to provide security personnel, cleaning services, and maintenance actions in the development area, after the first respondent submitted multiple claims to the Tribunal. (Paras 2-5)

Findings of Court:
The Impugned Decisions issued by the Tribunal did not exhibit illegality or irrationality and were found lawful, leading to the dismissal of the judicial review applications with an order for costs. (Paras 36-37)

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's awards were tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety; whether it appropriately ordered the convening of an EGM. (Paras 21-24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and that the applicant did not sufficiently identify errors within the awards; thus, the applications for judicial review cannot succeed. (Paras 36-37)

Result: Applications for judicial review dismissed; costs ordered. (Para 37)

Table of Content
1. judicial review applications for quashing awards. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. grounds for judicial review include illegality, irrationality, etc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. courts can scrutinize substance and process in judicial reviews. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16)
4. requirements for substantiating complaints in judicial reviews. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. court's authority to uphold or quash tribunal decisions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. interpretation of tribunal powers under the strata management act. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 35)
7. judicial review applications dismissed; costs ordered. (Para 37)

Shahnaz Sulaiman J:

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 an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 – AppellantVersusLee Boon Peng & Anor – Respondent

Judicial review applications require clear identification of grounds such as illegality and irrationality; failure to substantiate claims leads to dismissal.

Shahnaz Sulaiman J:

Cases Referred (5)

Subang Perdana Management Corporation Court 3-5 – Appellant
Versus
Lee Boon Peng & Anor – Respondent