Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 23 of 2020

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 23 of 2020
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 23 of 2020

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 14 January, 2021 | 0

    Can a management corporation suspend the usage of the common facilities or common services due to arrears owing by a proprietor, which arrears are disputed by the proprietor?

    Case:

    PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE v. 3 TWO SQUARE SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 1377

    Brief Facts:

    • Perbadanan Pengurusan 3 Two Square is the management corporation (“MC”) for 3 Two Square (“Development”), which was developed by 3 Two Square Sdn Bhd (“Developer”).

     

    • The Development is a mixed development comprising of 6 commercial blocks owned by various parcel owners including the Developer which owns the last block of the Development (“Block F”).

     

    • The MC claims that the Developer had failed to make payment of its maintenance and sinking fund charges over several years, which arrears amount to RM4,751,805-52 as at 31 October 2019, and continues to accumulate with non-payment of the charges on a daily basis (“Arrears”), leading to the MC filing a suit against the Developer to recover the Arrears.

     

    • The Developer on the other hand, disputes the validity of the sums claimed.

     

    • The MC had issued two (2) written statutory notices for payment in Form 20 (“Notices for Payment”) pursuant to Regulation 31 of the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015 (“Regulations”).

     

    • The above events culminated in the issuance of a letter dated 12 June 2020 from the MC notifying the Developer that the Arrears had not been paid and consequently, the MC was invoking its statutory powers pursuant to By-Law 6(5) of the Third Schedule of the Regulations to stop or suspend the usage of the common facilities or common services provided by the MC.

     

    • The suspended services are as follows and was to continue until the MC is in receipt of the Arrears:

     

    1. limiting the usage of lifts for Block F to only 1 unit at any given 1 time;

     

    2. all toilets in every floor on Block F are closed except for toilets on the 7th floor;

     

    3. the chiller and cooling tower will be switched on from 8.00am to 4.00pm for Block F on weekdays only and will not operate on weekends and public holidays.

     

    • On the same date, the MC affixed the suspension notices on the notice board of Block F.

     

    • The suspension was implemented on 22 June 2020, leading the Developer to sue the MC on the basis that the suspension was unlawful.

     

    • The Developer claimed that the amount of the Arrears was strongly disputed as the sums claimed together with the interest calculation was severely flawed on the following basis and it had in fact paid in full all the maintenance and sinking fund charges save for the charges unlawfully charged based on square footage:

     

    1. the charging of maintenance and sinking fund charges ought to be according to number of share units and not square footage;

     

    2. payment for electricity charges had been made by the Developer but which ought to have been borne by the MC;

     

    3. double claim for electricity charges incurred in the common property was imposed;

     

    4. the interest calculation stated in the running account could not be reconciled;

     

    5. the MC had misapplied payments made by the Developer to disputed invoices and not invoices directed by the Developer.

    HIGH COURT DECISION – FOUND IN FAVOUR OF MC!

    The High Court dismissed the application by the Developer and found in favour of the MC. The court was of the view that the argument taken by the Developer that it cannot be a defaulter as there were no outstanding charges, and that it had disputed the legality of other charges imposed on it, is flawed. This argument would go against the clear wordings of By-Law 6(1) defining who a defaulter is. The recourse to suspension provided by By-Law 6(5) would then be meaningless as a defaulter can claim that outstanding charges are disputed to avoid the suspension.

    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 1 of 2021

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a person who has given a property by way of a gift claim caveatable interest over the said property subsequently? Case: HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI v. TAN SRI DATO’ KAM WOON WAH & ANORRead more

    • Legal Update 24 of 2020 (end of 2020)

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a purchaser of an auction property claim trespass on the basis that it was unaware of the existence of retention pond and structures on the auction land? Case: BAYANGAN SEPADU SDN BHD v. JABATANRead more

    • Legal Update 22 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a purchaser claim for the potential loss of profit on a property successfully bid at an auction if the property bid is subsequently claimed by someone else later? Case: PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK PEJABAT TANAH DANRead more

    • Legal Update 21 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the courts grant an extension of time for completion of a contract which performance has been delayed or hindered due to the movement control order? Case: HO KEAN PIN v. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD &Read more

    • Legal Update 20 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      If there was late delivery of a property to the buyer, should damages for late delivery be calculated from the date of the sale and purchase agreement or the date the booking fee was paid?Read more

    • Legal Update 19 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the management corporation of a building enact house rules to prohibit short-term rentals? Case: INNAB SALIL & ORS v. VERVE SUITES MONT’ KIARA (CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(i)-74-10/2019(W) Brief Facts: Innab Salil and others (“SaidRead more

    • Legal Update 18 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can statistical data not premised on words be found to be defamatory in nature? Case: SUN MEDIA CORPORATION SDN BHD v. THE NIELSEN COMPANY (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD [2020] 7 CLJ 751 Brief Facts: Sun MediaRead more

    • Legal Update 17 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can service charge received by employees as incentives be incorporated into the calculation of their basic salary to meet the requirement of minimum wage? Case: CRYSTAL CROWN HOTEL & RESORT SDN BHD (CRYSTAL CROWN HOTELRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory

      JHJ had the pleasure of meeting one …

    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

      It is the last month of the …

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 1 of 2021
    • Legal Update 24 of 2020 (end of 2020)
    • Legal Update 23 of 2020
    • Legal Update 22 of 2020
    • Legal Update 21 of 2020
    • Legal Update 20 of 2020
    • Legal Update 19 of 2020

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • 20th Anniversary
    • About
    • Articles
    • Associates
    • Careers
    • Consultant
    • Contact Us
      • Ipoh
      • Kota Bharu
      • Melaka
      • Petaling Jaya
    • Disclaimer
    • Home
    • Industry Experience
    • Legal Cauldron
    • Legal Updates
    • Nature Of Practice
    • News & Bulletin
    • Our People
    • Partners
      • Adrian Thambyrajah
      • Jayadeep Bhanudevan
      • Siti Aminah Md Hanafi
    • Practice Areas
      • Banking & Finance
      • Building & Construction
      • Commerce & Trading
      • Corporate And Commercial
      • Dispute resolution, Arbitration & Mediation
      • Energy Oil & Gas
      • Healthcare
      • Human Resource & Industrial Relations
      • Information & Communication Technology
      • Insurance and Takaful
      • Knowledge and Advisory
      • Mining & Quarrying
      • Real Estate and Property Related Ventures
      • Telecommunication
      • Transportation and Logistics
    • Privacy Notice
    • Privacy Policy and Data Protection
    • Publications
    • We Care
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil