EKUITI SETEGAP SDN BHD vs PLAZA 393 MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 MarsdenLR 2582

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
EKUITI SETEGAP SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PLAZA 393 MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Lim Chee Wee,Manshan Singh,Lee Mei Hooi ,Respondent Advocate: Steven Thiru,Aimee Liew, Au Yong Wai Nyan, David Ng Yew Kiat,Lim Zi-Han

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's claim for maintenance charges based on the defendant's obligations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. court's findings regarding statutory obligations and maintenance charges. (Para 8 , 10 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20)
3. conditions under which agreements are enforceable or void. (Para 21 , 22)
4. limitation period considerations on contractual grounds. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
5. management corporation's duty to levy contributions under statute. (Para 27)

[1] This is the appellant's ("the defendant") appeal against the decision of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur in allowing the respondent's ("the plaintiff ") claim for the sum of RM10,420,461.50 (the judgment sum); interest at 10% per annum on the judgment sum from 5 March 2016 until the date of judgment; interest at 5% per annum on the judgment sum from the date of judgment until full settlement and costs.

The Background Facts

[2] The plaintiff is a Management Corporation ("the MC") established on 21 April 2008 under the Strata Titles Act 1985 ("the STA "). The defendant is the registered proprietor of 7 retail parcels ("7 parcels"), measuring 439,524.64 sq ft of the complex known as Plaza 393 ("Plaza 393").

[3] The pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 MarsdenLR 2582

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYAEKUITI SETEGAP SDN BHD – AppellantVersusPLAZA 393 MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
EKUITI SETEGAP SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
PLAZA 393 MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – Respondent