Case:

Brief Facts:

• The plaintiff, (“Ng Min”) was the owner of one unit in 2Hampshire Apartment (“Condominium”) and the defendant was the Management Corporation (“MC”) of the Condominium.
  
  
• Ng Min owed the MC outstanding maintenance and service charges totalling RM145,634.77 (“outstanding sum”) and was given 14 days to pay the outstanding sum.
  
  
• Despite several attempts, the parties were unable to come to a settlement on the payment of the outstanding sum.
  
  
• Since Ng Min failed to make payment of the outstanding sum, the MC deactivated Ng Min’s lift access cards and the unit’s intercom system. The MC further barred Ng Min from using the Condominium’s common facilities.
  
  
• Ng Min’s unit was allegedly occupied by a tenant at this time and it was further alleged that the said tenancy agreement came to an end due to the limitation of accessibility implemented by the MC to the unit.
  
  
• Aggrieved by this situation, Ng Min sought, among other things, a declaration against the MC that it was unlawful and illegal for the MC to deny access to Ng Min’s unit. Ng Min argued on the basis that lifts do not fall within the definition of common facilities of the Condominium.

THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT (HC)

• The HC dismissed Ng Min’s claim.
  
  
• The HC asserted that the deed of mutual covenants (“DMC”) signed between Ng Min and the MC, as well as the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015 allows the MC to impose restrictions on Ng Min from using the common facilities or common services provided by the MC whenever there is default and arrears in paying the service charges.
  
  
• The HC disagreed with the Ng Min’s contention that lifts do not form part of the common property and facilities of the Condominium. Although lifts were not expressly listed as common facilities in the second schedule of the DMC, the HC asserted that lifts are fully maintained by the MC and are used daily by all residents.
  
  
• The HC further clarified that by deactivating the lift access cards, the MC had not taken possession of the unit. Ng Min and/or the tenant was still able to access his unit by using the service lift.
  
  
• The HC reminded Ng Min that the core reason for the barring of the lift access cards was due to his own failure to pay the outstanding sum to the MC. The HC further asserted that the courts would not allow parties to benefit from their own wrongdoing or, in this case, omission.