1. Challenge to a Consent Order validating maintenance and sinking fund charges in a strata-titled development — Allegations of fraud and lack of service. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2025 MarsdenLR 4563
HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM)
ASMAH MUSA, JC
Equitable Management Consultants Sdn Bhd & Anor – Plaintiff
Versus
Perbadanan Pengurusan Pusat Perdagangan Amcorp & Anor – Defendant
CIVIL SUIT NO BA-22NCvC-428-10 OF 2024
Advocates:
Ravinder Singh Sodhi a/l Manmohan Singh Sodhi (Gurmit Sodhi Chambers) for the plaintiff.
Malar a/p Loganathan (Hashim Raj & Lim) for the first defendant.
Nur Syafiqah bt Mohamed Yusoff (Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor) for the second defendant.
Ravinder Singh Sodhi a/l Manmohan Singh Sodhi (Gurmit Sodhi Chambers) for the plaintiff.
Malar a/p Loganathan (Hashim Raj & Lim) for the first defendant.
Nur Syafiqah bt Mohamed Yusoff (Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor) for the second defendant.
The court affirmed that a solicitor's knowledge is imputed to the client, establishing constructive notice. It held that strict adherence to statutory timelines for setting aside orders is mandatory, and that collateral attacks on valid court orders constitute an abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d), Order 42 rule 13, Order 62 rule 6(1) - Evidence Act 1957 - Section 57 - Striking out of action - Consent Order - Service and constructive notice - In strata management environments, communication via notice boards and letterbox delivery is a recognized and valid practice (Paras 13, 14) - The knowledge of a solicitor is imputed to the client, and a litigant cannot feign ignorance when their counsel is aware of a matter (Paras 15, 16, 17).
(B) Order 42 rule 13 - Time limit for setting aside an order - Any application to set aside a judgment or order must be filed within 30 days from the date the order is served - Statutory timelines must be applied strictly to preserve the finality of judgments (Paras 19, 20, 21, 22).
(C) Equitable Relief - Declaratory relief is discretionary and subject to laches - Equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent; unreasonable delay without explanation defeats a claim for equitable relief (Paras 23, 24, 25, 27).
(D) Doctrine of Approbation and Reprobation - A party who has participated in and voted for a resolution cannot subsequently challenge the legal recognition of that decision; a party cannot "blow hot and cold" by denying what they earlier accepted and approved (Paras 29, 30, 31, 32). (E) Abuse of Process - Occurs when court procedures are used for an improper purpose or to harass an opponent - A suit brought as a collateral attack to dismantle a legal obstacle in another proceeding constitutes an abuse of process (Paras 33, 35). (F) Allegations of Fraud - Fraud must be specifically pleaded and accompanied by full particulars; general allegations without documentary evidence or witness statements are insufficient to sustain a claim (Paras 36, 37).
Facts of the case:
Parcel owners challenged a paragraph in a Consent Order which declared that previous maintenance and sinking fund charges imposed by a management corporation were valid and binding. The owners alleged the order was obtained fraudulently and without proper service. However, the order had been circulated via notice boards and letterboxes, and the owners' solicitors had referenced the order in separate proceedings months before the current action was filed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had constructive notice of the order through their solicitors and the customary communication methods of the management corporation. The action was filed significantly beyond the 30-day statutory limit under Order 42 rule 13. Additionally, the plaintiffs' prior approval of the underlying resolutions and their unreasonable delay in seeking relief barred them from obtaining equitable remedies.
Issues: Whether the service of the Consent Order was valid or constructive notice existed; whether the action was time-barred under Order 42 rule 13; whether the plaintiffs were entitled to equitable relief despite delay; whether the doctrine of approbation and reprobation applied; and whether the suit constituted an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the knowledge of a solicitor is imputed to the client, establishing constructive notice. Procedural timelines for setting aside orders are essential to justice and must be strictly observed. Equitable relief is unavailable to those who are indolent. A party is estopped from challenging a decision they previously approved. A suit filed to circumvent a valid court order in another proceeding is a collateral attack and an abuse of process.
Result: First Defendant’s application allowed; Plaintiffs’ Writ and Statement of Claim struck out.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- equity
- civil law
- law of agency
Table of Contents
2. Validity of service and fraud allegations versus time-bar under Order 42 rule 13, constructive notice, and abuse of process via collateral attack. (Para 10 , 11 )
3. Service via notice boards is customary in strata management; solicitor's knowledge is imputed to client; delay precludes equitable relief; inconsistent conduct bars claims. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
4. Applications to set aside orders must strictly adhere to statutory timelines; constructive notice via solicitors is binding; fraud must be specifically pleaded with full particulars. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 22 , 37 )
5. Application to strike out the Writ and Statement of Claim allowed under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. (Para 41 , 42 )
6. Is personal service mandatory for court orders affecting parcel owners in a strata development?
No. The court recognizes that communication via notice boards and letterboxes is a customary and accepted practice in strata management environments, especially when dealing with numerous parcel owners. (Para 13 , 14 )
7. Can a client claim lack of knowledge if their solicitor was aware of a court order?
No. The general rule is that the knowledge of a solicitor is imputed to the client, and a litigant cannot feign ignorance when their counsel is aware of a matter. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
8. What is the effect of filing an application to set aside a judgment outside the 30-day period under Order 42 rule 13?
Such applications must fail unless an extension of time is granted, as statutory timelines are essential to preserve the finality of judgments and are not mere technicalities. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
9. How does the doctrine of approbation and reprobation apply to parties who previously consented to a resolution?
A party cannot blow hot and cold by accepting and approving a resolution or rate and subsequently challenging its legal effect after an unfavorable outcome in related proceedings. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
10. What are the requirements for pleading fraud in a legal action?
Allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and accompanied by full particulars; general allegations, regardless of how strongly worded, are insufficient without the requisite particulars. (Para 36 , 37 )
Asmah Musa JC:
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
[1]This is the Court’s decision on the First Defendant’s Notice of Application (Encl.11) brought pursuant to Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. The Defendant seeks to strike out the Plaintiffs’ Writ and Statement of Claim dated 23 October 2024 on the grounds that the action is frivolous, vexatious, time-barred, and an abuse of the process of the court.
[2]The Plaintiffs challenge paragraph (f) of a Consent Order dated 2 May 2024 made in Originating Summons No. BA-24NCvC-262-02/2024, which declared that all previous maintenance and sinking fund charges imposed by the Management Corporation of Amcorp Trade Centre (“ATC”) are “valid and binding upon all parcel owners.”
[3]The Plaintiffs allege that the Consent Order was obtained fraudulently and without service, and therefore void ab initio. The First Defendant contends the order was properly obtained with the consent of the parcel owners, duly served, and that this suit constitutes a collateral attack on a valid court order.
II. BACKGROUND FACTS
[4]The First Defendant is the Management Corporation (MC) of Amcorp Trade Centre, a strata-titled development consisting of approximately 956 parcels. The Plaintiffs own four of these parcels.
[5]During the 10th Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 26 February 2023, the parcel owners resolved the following:
i)Special Resolution No. 1: approving recalculation of share units for all parcel;
ii)Ordinary Resolution No. 2: agreeing that the current maintenance and sinking fund rates would remain until recalculation was finalised and validated by the court.
[6]Pursuant to these resolutions, the MC initiated OS No. BA-24NCvC-262-02/2024 seeking court confirmation. On 2 May 2024, a Consent Order was recorded before the High Court, jointly agreed by the MC and the Director of Lands and Mines, Selangor.
[7]The relevant portion, paragraph (f), states:
“All maintenance and sinking fund charges imposed by the Applicant prior to the orders in paragraphs (a) to (e) herein are valid and binding upon all parcel owners at ATC, their personal representatives, purchasers, heirs and permitted assigns.”
[8]Following the order, copies were delivered to each parcel owner’s letterbox and displayed on the notice board of ATC on 27 May 2024.
[9]The Plaintiffs subsequently filed the present action on 23 October 2024, almost five months after the date of service. They seek a declaration that paragraph (f) is unlawful, null, and void.
III. PLAINTIFFS’ ARGUMENTS
[10]The Plaintiffs advance four principal arguments:
(a)The Consent Order was never served on them in accordance with Order 62 rule 6(1) of the ROC 2012. No affidavit of service was filed; hence, the 30-day limitation under Order 42 rule 13 did not commence.
(b)The inclusion of paragraph (f) was fraudulent and not authorised by the parcel owners. They claim it was inserted unilaterally by the MC’s solicitors and therefore obtained by misrepresentation.
(c)The relief sought is equitable, and the Court should not strike out a claim that raises serious allegations of fraud without hearing evidence.
(d)This suit is distinct from BA-22NCvC-207-05/2024 (“Suit 207”) because it challenges the validity of a court order, not the quantum of charges. Therefore, it is not an abuse of process.
IV. DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS
[11]The First Defendant, supported by the Second Defendant, raises the following contentions:
(a)Time-Bar: The Plaintiffs are barred by Order 42 rule 13 since they received (or were deemed to have received) the Consent Order on 27.5.2024 but filed this suit only on 23.10.2024 which was 4 months and 26 days late and without seeking an extension of time.
(b)Service Validity: The Consent Order was served via notice board and letterbox delivery, both accepted modes of communication under strata management law.
(c)Constructive Notice: Even if personal service is disputed, the Plaintiffs had constructive notice through their solicitors in Suit 207 as early as 19 July
