1. ) CHU JIN HAU 2. ) ONG LAN YIT 3. ) CHU OI VUN 4. ) FOO POH WAH HOLDINGS SDN BHD 5. ) LIM HOOI YONG 6. ) SOO KING LOKE 7. ) LEONG NGOO @ LEONG YUE THIN 8. ) ONG LAM MOOI 9. ) YONG MIEN DEE 10. ) GLOBAL KIARA SDN BHD 11. ) CBD RESOURCES SDN BHD 12. ) BUSS WEALTH MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 13. ) YIP WAI KEN 14. ) ANNE TANG GUAT LENG 15. ) LOU SET FANG 16. ) YIP YOKE WEI 17. ) GOH EE LEEN 18. ) PANG YEE HWA 19. ) PRIDE RESIDENCE SDN BHD v 1. ) SIME DARBY BRUNSFIELD HOLDING SDN BHD 2. ) SIME DARBY PRO...

ba-22c-17-04-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 12 February 2025 • BA-22C-17-04/2022 • 57 min read
28 cases cited (0 SG, 28 foreign)

Catchwords

Enc.119 Whether the Plaintiffs’ have locus standi in bringing this action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants - the fact being that this action brought by the Plaintiffs are not a representative action, Plaintiffs have no locus standi to pray for a declaration to nullify the Architect’s Certificates, Certificate of Fitness for Occupation and Certificates of Completion and Compliance which will affect all other unit/parcel owners in the development. - that the right to bring any action for non-compliance of any of the approval given for the development falls in the hands of the local authority related - the Plaintiffs being individual unit/parcel owners do not have locus standi to bring this action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants on matters involving the common property when the MC has been established prior to filing of this suit. - payments made for maintenance charges and sinking fund to the 1st Defendant during the DMP were paid between the period from 2010 to January 2015, the Plaintiffs are time-barred pursuant to s.6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953 as this suit was filed on 28.4.2022. - the right to take any action pertaining to the building maintenance account lies with the JMB and not the Plaintiffs as claimed. Encl 108 -the 1st Defendant was not under any obligation to impose the maintenance charges and or the sinking fund according to share units. - since the 1st Defendant has an obligation to impose and collect the maintenance charges and sinking fund pursuant to the SPA, any breach of the same entitles the Plaintiffs to bring an action against the 1st Defendant. In this case the Plaintiffs are time-barred pursuant to s.6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953 since more than 6 years have lapsed when this case was filed. -since the JMB can be sued and can sue pursuant to the BCPA and the SMA, as owners of the parcels, the Plaintiff could bring action against the JMB should there be any grievance related to the common property. Encl 117 - the 3rd Defendant has failed to comply with its statutory requirements pursuant to the then BCPA and the subsequent SMA and the Strata Titles Act to impose and collect maintenance charges and sinking fund based on share units since the 3rd Defendant’s establishment on 13.12.2014. As for the charges imposed and collected on a single rate, the rates to be imposed should be a single rate and not a multiple rate as was done by the 3rd Defendant. - Due to the 3rd Defendant’s failure to comply with the legal requirements to impose and collect maintenance charges and sinking fund based on share units and on a single rate, the imposition and collection of the same is unlawful and the sums collected so far from the Plaintiffs since its conception on 13.12.2014 must be returned to the Plaintiffs. - it is only proper that the maintenance charges and sinking fund be recalculated based on share units (determined in accordance to the 1st Schedule of the SMA 2013) and on a single rate for the period from 13.12.2014 till 30.9.2020 and from 1.10.2020 onwards till to date accordingly.

Judges (1)

Counsel (7)

Parties (34)

Statutes Cited

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (28)

UK (3)
[1901] AC 1 [1903] 1 Ch 109 [1983] 2 All ER 508
MY (25)
[1982] 2 MLJ 177 [1988] 1 CLJ 219 [1988] 2 MLJ 12 [1988] 2 MLJ 624 [1988] 2 MLJ 626 [1990] 1 CLJ 1010 [1995] 3 MLJ 417 [1995] 4 CLJ 551 [2004] 1 MLJ 8 [2005] 1 MLJ 515 [2007] 7 MLJ 385 [2009] 5 MLJ 754 [2011] 4 CLJ 630 [2012] 1 MLJ 126 [2012] 10 CLJ 634 [2017] 5 CLJ 389 [2017] MLJU 209 [2017] MLJU 62 [2018] 10 CLJ 438 [2018] MLJU 2008 [2018] MLJU 647 [2019] 10 CLJ 547 [2019] 3 MLJ 777 [2021] 4 MLJ 367 [2021] MLJU 532

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-22c-17-04-2022)