FESTIVA MALL SDN BHD v PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN ZETAPARK

wa-22ncvc-281-04-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 19 August 2025 • WA-22NCvC-281-04/2024 • 37 min read
7 cases cited (0 SG, 7 foreign)

Catchwords

Mixed property development – One building in one development area with two components – Residential parcels stacked atop a mall with retail units – Only a limited part of Common Property is used by the mall – Under s.21 Strata Management Act 2013, Joint Management Body has a non-delegable duty to manage, maintain and repair all Common Property within the development area, including for the retail units in the mall – Under s.25(1) Strata Management Act 2013, all purchasers are obliged to pay Maintenance Charges and Sinking Fund contribution – Even the developer has similar obligation to pay the Charges and contribution for unsold units – Pursuant to s.148 & 149 of the Strata Management Act 2013, an agreement between developer, mall developer and landowner which contravenes the said Act 2013 is invalid – JMB has no power to exempt any purchaser from paying Maintenance Charges and Sinking Fund contribution – s.105 Strata Management Act 2013 is applicable only to claims filed at the Strata Management Tribunal, not to claims filed in the civil courts – s.6(1)(d) Limitation Act 1953 applicable as the Defendant’s counterclaim for Maintenance Charges and Sinking Fund contribution is a claim by virtue of written law – Part of the claim which accrued more than 6 years prior to the Writ is time-barred by s.6(1)(d) Limitation Act 1953 – s.26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 states that a right of action to recover a debt is deemed to accrue on the date of the last payment made by the debtor – Right of action is extended every time a partial payment is made by the debtor to the creditor – Definition of a “running account” – A “running account” will also become time-barred if there is no partial payment for 6 years to trigger s.26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 – Plaintiff incurred substantial expenses to manage and maintain part of the Common Property – Unjust enrichment for the Defendant if the Plaintiff’s expenses are not set-off from Maintenance Charges and Sinking Fund contribution payable to the Defendant - Defendant’s counterclaim to be allowed subject to limitation for the part which preceded the Writ by more than 6 years and subject to set-off of expenses incurred by the Plaintiff – Plaintiff has a substantial set-off – Not a defaulter – Plaintiff should be allowed to attend the first Annual General Meeting of the newly formed Management Corporation and to vote.

Judges (1)

Gan Techiong Delivered

Counsel (7)

Shearn Delamore & Co. Firm Shook Lin & Bok Firm Daud Sulaiman Counsel Plaintiff Koo Jia You Counsel Plaintiff Nicole Wan Yee Herng Counsel Defendant Samuel Tan Counsel Defendant Sathya A/P Kumardas Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (3)

BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA ZETAPARK Defendant FESTIVA MALL Sdn Bhd Plaintiff PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN ZETAPARK Defendant

Case Significance

FESTIVA MALL SDN BHD v BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA ZETAPARK is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 19, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-281-04-2024). The case was decided by Gan Techiong.

What was the outcome of FESTIVA MALL SDN BHD v BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA ZETAPARK?

FESTIVA MALL SDN BHD v BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA ZETAPARK is a High Court decision dated August 19, 2025. The case was heard by Gan Techiong. See the full judgment for details.

Statutes Cited

Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)
Rules of Court 2012
Strata Titles Act 1985 (Cap 318)

Cases Cited (7)

MY (7)
[2018] 4 MLJ 284 [2019] 2 CLJ 592 [2020] 3 MLJ 645 [2022] 4 MLJ 397 [2022] 6 CLJ 219 [2024] 1 MLJ 948 [2025] 7 MLJ 601

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncvc-281-04-2024)