Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

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.

Recent Post

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us