Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

STRATA TITLE – MANAGEMENT – TRESPASS AND NUISANCE

Q: My neighbour rented out his condominium unit to university students. He partitioned his units and renovation works were carried out for a very long period of time. They often went on through the night and early hours of the day. This had affected my family and I so badly. The renovation too caused damage to my house. When the renovation stops, students moved in. The amount of people that would usually live in such a space doubled. The noise level was unbearable. We made complaints to the management corporation but nothing was done. What can I do?

You can make up a case for trespass and nuisance against your neighbour.

Trespass – Complaint on Renovation which Caused Damage

  • STEP 1 – Lodge a complaint against the local authorities to investigate the damage caused by the renovation works. The local authorities will carry out investigation and issue letters to the respective parties.
    The letters from the local authorities would be evidence that renovation was carried out and whether it was approved or not approved. If it is not approved, the local authorities will also issue notices instructing the respective parties to remove of the illegal renovation.
  • STEP 2 – Take pictures of the damage to your unit. Obtain expert witness eg. contractors to confirm the damage is caused by the renovation carried out by your neighbour.
  • STEP 3 – If the damage persists or if no compliance is made by the neighbour, you may seek legal redress against your neigbour for trespass.

Trespass is actionable per se, without the need to prove special damages.

Nuisance – Complaint on Illegal Renovation and Unbearable Noise from Students

  • STEP 1 – Lodge police reports and write to local authorities on the unbearable noise level and nuisance. Get the police to investigate. Identify the names of the investigating officers so that they can be later called to testify as witness.
  • STEP 2 – Obtain record of noise in your unit such as video or audio recordings. However, there is no compulsory need for scientific or technical evidence that the noise generated was beyond tolerable levels. The test for private nuisance is whether the noise breached levels of tolerance of decent society and community.

Action against Management Corporation or JMB

Legal action may also be taken against the management under the Strata Management Act 2013. The Management has the duty to ensure there is no nuisance (See Para 8(3) of the 3rd Schedule of the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015.)

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami