Park Access Sdn Bhd & Ors v Badan Pengurusan Bersama Prima Avenue dan DPCC Fasa 1 (Block G, H, I) and other appeals (CA)
The Plaintiff is the JMB and claimed that the accessory parcels of car park bays be declared as common property and the Sale and purchase agreement entered into be declared null and void.
The Defendant questioned on the locus standi of the JMB in initiating the action and filed a striking out application in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the striking out application and the Defendant appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Bandar Utama Development Sdn Bhd & Anor v Bandar Utama 1 JMB (CA)
This is an appeal by the Developer (Bandar Utama Development Sdn Bhd) against the decision of the High Court in allowing a pre-action discovery pursuant to Order 24 R 7A of the Rules of Court 2012 in favour of Bandar Utama 1 JMB.
The main complaint by the Bandar Utama 1 JMB is that the developer has breached the sale and purchase agreement and failed to deliver strata titles despite delivering of vacant possession 10 years ago.
The developer in the appeal, argued, among other issues that the dispute must be referred to the Strata Tribunal pursuant to Section 105(1) of the Strata Management Act 2013 first to exhaust available remedies before filing of the originating summons for pre-action discovery.
3 Two Square Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan 3 Two Square & Ors
 MLJU 111
3 Two Square Sdn Bhd, the developer sought a mandatory injunction to compel the Management Corporation to maintain properties on the basis they are common property of 3TwoSquare. The subject property includes, cooling tower, lifts and toilets.
The Developer also sought personal liability of the council members since they owe fiduciary duties to the Management Corporation.
The High Court ruled that those subject areas are common property and mandatory injunction was granted to compel the Management Corporation to manage those areas.
It is widely reported that a Lebanese Jewellery Trader is claiming from Datin Rosmah a total sum of USD14,787,770.00.
We had access to the LIST of jewellery. The pleadings went on to suggest that it is the usual practice where the Trader delivers on a consignment basis at the request of Datin Rosmah Mansor to evaluate, thereafter she would purchase the jewellery and return the balance of the unselected jewellery to the Trader.
MOK SIOU MIN v. HAMPSHIRE RESIDENCES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION & ORS  1 LNS 333
The facts are rather simple. The Plaintiff commenced this action against the Defendants, (MC and the Management Committee members) for nuisance and deactivation of the access cards.
On 8.5.2011, an explosion occurred at Hamshire Park Condominium which caused damages to certain units including 2 units owned by the Plaintiff.
On 20.9.2012, JMB received the insurance claim for the 2 units owned by the Plaintiff for a total sum of RM19,000.00.
There are outstanding maintenance charges due and owed by the Plaintiff and the MC took the insurance sum of RM19,000.00 set off against the outstanding maintenance charges and deactivated access card of the Plaintiff.
The principal issue was whether the deactivation of the access cards to the Plaintiff’s unit was lawful.
We reported the decision of the Court of Appeal on 27.6.2018 almost just right after decision was delivered in the Court of Appeal. Written grounds were made available here.
A motion was then filed in the Court of Appeal for stay. That essentially is to stay the decision of the Court of Appeal to allow TEALIVE to run its business pending the disposal of the appeal in the Federal Court.Read More…
We have obtained a copy of the actual charge sheet of PP v Najib when our ex-PM was charged in the court this morning.
The actual charge sheets read 4 different charges:
(a) 1 under Section 23 Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009;
(b) 3 separate charges under Section 409 Penal Code (5, 27 and 10 million Ringgit Malaysia).
[First to Report]
On 23.2.2017 we wrote about La-Kaffas version as pleaded in the court proceedings. See Bubble Tea War (CHATIME v TEALIVE): La Kaffa’s version
On 29.5.2017, the High Court Judge, Wong Kian Kheong JC dismissed the injunction filed by La Kaffa and La Kaffa (Chatime) appealed to the Court of Appeal (“Appeal 1261”). Loob (Tealive) also filed a cross appeal (“Appeal 1275”).
This morning, (27.6.2018) the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of La Kaffa (Chatime) and granted the injunction in favour of La Kaffa against Loob (TeaLive). The Court of Appeal has also dismissed Loob’s (TeaLive) appeal. The grounds of judgment is available at the bottom.
BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA KOMPLEKS PANDAN SAFARI LAGOON v. TAM CHENG MENG  1 LNS 223
This is an appeal by the Appellant/Plaintiff who is the joint management body (“JMB“) of Kompleks Pandan Safari Lagoon against the decision of the learned Magistrate in its suit against the Respondent/Defendant. The Defendant is a parcel owner. The Developer was wound up on 28.3.2006 and appointed a private liquidator.
The private liquidator in turn appointed other managing agents on 30.4.2009 and 1.6.211 to operate and manage the building.
The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant at the Magistrate’s Court was for outstanding service charges for the building in the sum of RM81,413.93 for the period up to June 2015. The learned Magistrate after full trial allowed only part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the sum of RM3,579.87, which is the amount of the service charges owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the period from July 2014 to June 2015.
Dissatisfied with the Magistrate’s decision, the Plaintiff filed an appeal. At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal, the High Court Judge allowed the appeal and the Plaintiff’s claim for the sum of RM81,413.93 together with interest of 5% from 26.06.2015 until the date of full settlement of the judgment sum was given. The decision of the Magistrate Court was set-aside.
Ekuiti Setegap Sdn Bhd v Plaza 393 Management Corporation (Court of Appeal)
Plaza 393 reflects a very common problem plaguing many developers owned parcels in a mixed development intended to be subdivided. When it was reported in the High Court, it attracted quite a bit of attention since a quick glance suggested that it runs contrary to the current statutory regime. Before I go further, the facts were: