2026 MarsdenLR 284

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ROZ MAWAR ROZAIN, J
LENG WIE MUN – Appellant
Versus
SAEED ALI MAGAD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-165-04/2023]

Statutory definitions of inter-floor leakage are satisfied by dampness on any interior ceiling of a parcel. Failure to utilize regulatory appeal mechanisms against inspection findings creates a rebuttable presumption of liability, and evidence explaining a leakage pathway is admissible if the core substance of the dispute remains unchanged.

Headnote:(A) Strata Management Act 2013 - Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015 - Regulations 55, 59, 61 and 64 - Inter-floor leakage - Statutory duty to rectify - Regulation 55 defines 'inter-floor leakage' as evidence of dampness, moisture or water penetration on any ceiling forming part of the interior of a parcel. The statutory regime is engaged once such evidence exists, irrespective of whether the leakage is directly vertical. Failure to challenge a statutory inspection certificate through the prescribed regulatory mechanism precludes an owner from later disputing its validity. (Paras 6, 15-18, 40-41)

(B) Pleadings - Evidence at trial - Departure - Evidence adduced during trial can cure defects in pleadings provided the opposing party is not taken by surprise and does not raise objections. Where the essence of the claim remains consistent, refinement of the forensic explanation of a water pathway does not constitute a radical departure. (Paras 76-78, 86-90)

Facts of the case:
The owner of a lower unit sought relief against the owner of an upper unit for inter-floor water leakage damage. A management inspection identified the upper unit as the source, issuing a certificate of inspection. The upper unit owner failed to rectify the damage, leading to litigation. Evidence revealed the leakage path involved a bypass installation meant to circumvent a burst concealed pipe, with water traveling laterally through internal structures.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the evidence of water penetration in the auxiliary interior space satisfied the statutory definition of inter-floor leakage. Given the defendant's failure to utilize the statutory appeal process against the inspection certificate and his subsequent conduct in performing unauthorized repairs, the court drew an adverse inference against the defendant. The court found that the causal link was established on a balance of probabilities.

Issues: The main issues were whether the damage satisfied the regulatory definition of inter-floor leakage, whether the plaintiff departed from her pleaded case regarding the leakage pathway, and whether the defendant was liable for the costs of rectification and damages.

Ratio Decidendi: The definition of inter-floor leakage is not restricted to damage directly beneath a specific fitting; any internal ceiling proof suffices. Furthermore, as the defendant had full knowledge of the basis of the claim and failed to object to the evidentiary development of the leakage path, the claim did not suffer from incurable pleading defects. Liability was established based on the convergence of statutory certification, observational testimony, and the defendant's own covert remedial conduct.

Result: Claim allowed with mandatory injunctions and damages awarded.