Voting rights and charges must comply with statutory provisions; exclusion based on illegal charges is invalid.

[1] This is my grounds of judgment in respect of the applicant's application by way of an ex parte originating summons ("OS") (encl 1) and the defendant's application (encl 9) to strike out the applicant's OS.

[2] In the OS, the applicant prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) a declaration that the applicant is entitled to attend and vote at the annual general meeting of the defendant which is scheduled to be held on 6 May 2018 ("AGM");

(ii) an order that the duly elected Chairman of the AGM shall not prevent the applicant from casting its votes and shall accept the votes of the applicant in any motion or resolution proposed in the AGM;

(iii) in the event that the originating summons cannot be heard before 6 May 2018, an order that any AGM held without the participation of the applicant shall be null and void, of no effect, and/or set aside;

(iv) costs of this application to be paid by the defendant to the applicant;

(v) the applicant be given liberty to apply to carry out and effect the order of this court; and

(vi) such further and other reliefs as this court deems fit.

[3] The defendant objected to the hearing of the ex parte OS on an opposed basis. It requested that the OS be heard inter partes and that it be allowed to file an affidavit in reply, which requests were allowed by this court. Therefore, prayers (1) and (2) of the OS could not be determined by this court as the OS was heard after the AGM on 6 May 2018.

[4] After reading the affidavits and hearing the submissions of counsels, in respect of encl 1, this court allowed prayer (3) and declared that the AGM held on 6 May 2018 without the participation of the applicant is null and void, and of no effect. This court found that it was wrong and contrary to the provisions of the Strata Management Act 2013 for the defendant to have prevented the applicant from attending and voting at the AGM held on 6 May 2018.

[5] The defendant's application in encl 9 was dismissed with costs.

[6] The reasons for my decision in respect of encl 1 and encl 9 are as set out herein.

The Facts

[7] The applicant is the registered owner of seven retail parcels measuring 439,525.64 sqf in the building known as Plaza 393 Complex ("Plaza 393"). The defendant is the management corporation ("MC") of Plaza 393 established on 21 April 2008 under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (the" STA ").

[8] The defendant commenced an action against the applicant at the Kuala Lumpur High court in 2016 (Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-160-03-2016 [ 2016 MarsdenLR 431 , [2017] 2 AMR 849 ]) for arrears of service charges, sinking fund, quit rent and insurance charges for the period from 21 April 208 to 4 March 2016. After full trial, the High court allowed the defendant's claim in the sum of RM10,420,461.50 ("judgment sum") with interests and costs (the "2016 judgment"): see Plaza 393 Management Corporation v. Ekuiti Setegap Sdn Bhd , . The applicant appealed to the court of Appeal and applied for a stay of the 2016 judgment pending the disposal of the appeal. On 8 February 2017, the High court allowed the stay application with the condition that the applicant deposit the judgment sum with the defendant's solicitors as stakeholders within seven weeks from the date of the stay order, failing which the defendant is entitled to proceed with the execution of the 2016 judgment ("stay order"). On 10 March 2017, the applicant paid the judgment sum to the defendant's solicitors as stakeholders pursuant to the stay order.

[9] On 21 March 2018, the court of Appeal allowed the applicant's appeal and set aside the 2016 judgment: see Ekuiti Setegap Sdn Bhd v. Plaza 393 Manage