Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

INTER-FLOOR LEAKAGE

In Brief

Inter-Floor leakage is one of the common complaints received by strata building proprietors. Inter-floor leakage occurs when there is evidence of dampness, moisture or water penetration on the ceiling or any furnishing material that is attached, glued, laid or applied to the ceiling that forms part of the interior of a parcel, common property or limited common property depending on the case.

Q:

Who is responsible when inter-floor leakage occurs in your unit?

A: If the defects happen within the Defect Liability Period (DLP) or within 24 months upon vacant possession, the responsibility is upon the developer. This is covered by the provisions of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). If there is a leak on the ceiling, it is believed to come from the unit above until it is proven otherwise under Section 142 of the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA).

Q:  How do you deal with inter-floor leaking in your condominium?

A: Firstly, the affected owners must give notice of the leakage (“the notice”) to the Developer, Joint Management Body, Management Corporation or subsidiary management corporation (collectively referred to as “Management”)

Management must conduct an examination within (7) days to determine the source of the leak and the person responsible. After the manager has completed the inspection, he must give a Certificate of Inspection (Form 28) within five days.

Q: What if the affected owner is not satisfied with the results of the inspection by the management?

A:  If he/she is not satisfied, he/she may refer the matter to the Commissioner of building (COB) who shall then determine the cause of the leakage and the party responsible to rectify it by appointing a registered architect, engineer, quantity surveyor or building surveyor to assist him. The cost of appointment shall be borne by the party responsible to rectify the leakage.

Q:  Does the building management have access to check and fix their property inter-floor leakage occurs? What happens if they refuse?

A: Owners shall give full access to the building management provided that (7) days of written notice is given to the parcel owner.

Any parcel owner who fails to give access to the building management to carry out inter-floor inspection or rectification is an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding RM 50,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both.

Q:  What if the responsible party failed or refused to carry out their responsibilities in line with the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulation 2015 (SMR)?

A:  The affected parcel owner may commence civil proceedings in court or refer the matter to the Strata Management Tribunal.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

DISCOVERY APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ORDERS JPN TO DISCLOSE FAMILY TREE — STATUTORY RIGHT OVERRIDES ADMINISTRATIVE SECRECY

In V Kalanathan a/l Veeran v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 529, the High Court directed JPN to disclose the family tree details of a deceased co-proprietor to assist in probate proceedings. The Court held that such information, recorded in JPN’s digital registers, constitutes a “document” under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 and is not an official secret in the absence of a valid OSA certification. JPN’s reliance on internal circulars was rejected, as statutory rights under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 cannot be curtailed by administrative policy. The ruling reinforces that discovery against government agencies is permissible where necessary to ensure the fair disposal of proceedings.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – SOLICITOR – PANEL SOLICITORS LIABLE: LITIGATION BRIEF DOES NOT EXCUSE FAILURE TO PROTECT BANK’S SECURITY

In Malayan Banking Bhd v Russell Lua Kok Hiyong & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 599, the High Court held the bank’s former panel solicitors professionally negligent for failing to safeguard the bank’s proprietary interest in a charged property during litigation. The Court ruled that a solicitor’s duty to protect a client’s interests extends beyond the confines of a ‘litigation-only’ brief, particularly where the risk of loss is obvious and foreseeable. Limitation was held to run only when actual loss crystallised, and all partners were found jointly and severally liable under the Partnership Act 1961. The decision is a clear warning that solicitors must act proactively to protect client interests, even outside their immediate scope of instruction.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us