Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

STRATA MANAGEMENT – COMMON PROPERTY CONUNDRUM: CENTRALIZED AC COSTS AND THE STRATA MANAGEMENT DEBATE

Illustrative Scenario

The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a parcel located in Tower A of Menara UOA Bangsar. Tower A comprises 426 office parcels, while Tower B includes 3 office parcels, 9 retail parcels in the podium, and 2 parcels of multi-storey elevated car parks. The Defendant is the Management Body incorporated under Section 17 of the Strata Management Act 2013.

Tower A does not have centralized air-conditioning facilities (CACF); instead, chilled air is only supplied to common areas such as lift lobbies and corridors. Therefore, private parcel owners in Tower A must maintain their own individual air conditioning units. On the other hand, Tower B is equipped with a large CACF that serves chilled air to both common areas and some private parcels via air ducts.

The Plaintiff has raised concerns that the Defendant has unlawfully utilized funds from the maintenance account to operate, maintain, and service the CACF that benefits only certain parcels in Tower B. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant should seek reimbursement from the private parcel owners who benefit from the CACF.

Key Issues

  • Is the Defendant obligated to cover the costs and expenses associated with operating and maintaining the centralized air conditioning facilities (CACF)?
  • Should the Defendant seek reimbursement for the maintenance and electricity charges related to the CACF?

Application to the Scenario

  • Several private parcels in Tower B are owned and occupied by different occupiers. As long as the CACF in Tower B serves two or more occupiers of private parcels, it should be classified as common property.
  • The argument of “exclusive use” is not supported by any statute, nor does it make logical or legal sense. Enforcing such an argument would lead to unnecessary hardship, confusion, and absurdities in the application of the Strata Management Act 2013 or the Strata Titles Act 1985.

The court is likely to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim based on these considerations.

Reference Cases

  • 3 Two Square Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan 3 Two Square & Ors [2018] MLJU 111, HC (followed)
  • Julian-Armitage v The Proprietors Astor Centre BUP No 8932 [1998] QCA 111, CA (referred)
  • Perbadanan Pengurusan 3 Two Square v 3 Two Square Sdn Bhd & Anor and another civil [2019] MLJU 1983, CA (followed)

Legislation Referred to

  • Strata Management Act 2013 ss 2, 17, 59(1), (1)(a), (3)(b), (6)
  • Strata Titles Act 1985 ss 4, 43(1)(a)

This update outlines the potential legal interpretation regarding the responsibilities of a Management Body in maintaining centralized air conditioning facilities within a strata development, particularly when such facilities are used by multiple private parcel owners. The courts are likely to consider CACF serving multiple occupiers as common property, thereby making the Management Body responsible for its maintenance without needing reimbursement from individual parcel owners.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us