Understanding the “must know” legal & practical issues in maintenance and management of building and common property.
This 1-day intensive seminar primarily covers the must know topics within the strata management, especially for members of the joint management committee, management corporation and managing agents. The legislations that will be referred to are the Strata Management Act 2013; Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015 and Strata Management (Strata Management Tribunal) Regulations 2015.
Verve Suites Mont Kiara Management Corporation v Innab Salil and 20 others (Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No. WA-22NCVC-461-09/2017)
This is one of the more anticipated decision on Airbnb or short term rentals.
Plaintiff is the Management Corporation of Verve Suites Mont Kiara. 1st and 2nd Defendants are the tenants. The remaining Defendants are proprietors of Verve Suites.
On 25.3.2017, the Plaintiff held an EGM to pass House Rules 3 which among others, prohibited short-term rental of the parcels.
An overwhelming majority of the proprietors voted in favour to prohibit short term rentals.
Muhamad Nazri Bin Muhamad v JMB Menara Rajawali and Denflow Sdn Bhd  9 CLJ 547
Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No. WA-24NCVC-186-01/2018
The Plaintiff is a parcel owner of the residential component. The development area, namely Menara Rajawali consists of residential, retail and car park parcels. Allocated share units of the development area were assigned. The 1st Defendant is the Joint Management Body of Menara Rajawali and the 2nd Defendant the owner of the car park parcel.
In an AGM held on 25.6.2016, it was unanimously resolved that the mandate be given to the JMC to fix multiple rates of charges as below:
Salil Innab and Teng Keng Han v Badan Pengurusan Bersama Setia Sky Residences, Kuala Lumpur High Court, Originating Summons No. WA-24NCVC-776-04/2018  1 LNS 1323
There are several AirBnb cases pending in courts. Unfortunately not all of them were reported. There is one pending an appeal in the Court of Appeal involving Verve Suites and we will write about it when the decision is out.
The 1st Plaintiff is a tenant and the 2nd Plaintiff the parcel owner. The 1st Plaintiff rented the property from the 2nd Plaintiff for purposes of sub-letting it to 3rd party on a short-term basis. The 1st Plaintiff also rented other parcels within the development area for purposes of carrying out the short-term rental business through Innab Trade Sdn Bhd.
The JMB was aware of these arrangements. The Plaintiff claims that there is in place a short term rental operators standard operating procedure dated 25.3.2017 regulating the 1st Plaintiff and the employees of Innab Trade Sdn Bhd.
Park Access Sdn Bhd & Ors v Badan Pengurusan Bersama Prima Avenue dan DPCC Fasa 1 (Block G, H, I) and other appeals (CA)  1 LNS 711
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)  1 LNS 770
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
 4 CLJ 458
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…