Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

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

Summary and Facts
In Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 948, the dispute involved a mixed development called Pearl Suria, which comprised residential units, a shopping mall, and a car park. The developer, Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd, and the management corporation imposed different maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for residential and commercial parcels, reflecting their distinct purposes and benefits.

A residential owner, Yii, challenged this arrangement, and the High Court ruled that uniform rates must apply. Dissatisfied, the developer and management corporation appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the differentiated rates were lawful and justified under the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA 2013).

Legal Issues
i. Can developers impose different maintenance and sinking fund rates for residential and commercial parcels during the preliminary management period under the SMA 2013?
ii. Is a management corporation allowed to set different rates for parcels based on their significantly different purposes?

Court Findings

  • The SMA 2013 allows developers and management corporations to impose different rates for maintenance and sinking fund contributions in mixed developments based on the distinct purposes and benefits of parcels.
  • Charges must reflect actual use and benefits. Residential owners pay for exclusive facilities, while commercial owners are not burdened with unrelated costs.
  • Budgets must clearly separate expenses for shared and exclusive facilities, ensuring fairness and compliance.
  • The High Court wrongly required uniform rates and failed to apply the “significantly different purposes” test under the SMA 2013.

Practical Implications
Developers must set and justify differentiated rates transparently, ensuring alignment with parcel usage and benefits. Management corporations should maintain clear and detailed budgets to support varied rates for mixed developments, ensuring fairness and compliance with the law. Property owners should understand that charges may vary based on parcel type and usage rights in mixed developments. Legal practitioners should advise clients on the proper application of the SMA 2013 and the importance of equitable cost allocation.

This decision reinforces fair cost-sharing practices while balancing the rights of all stakeholders in mixed strata developments.

Reference Case and Legislation

  • Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 948
  • Muhamad Nazri bin Muhamad v JMB Menara Rajawali & Anor [2020] 3 MLJ 645; [2019] 10 CLJ 547, CA (distd)

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY