USE OF STRATA PROPERTY FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL PURPOSE

Q: I own several units of condominium. Can I do short term rental via booking platforms such as Airbnb, klsuites, booking.com, agoda.com?

A:

Short-term rental is permissible only if the house rules of your condominium do not prohibit it.
In Innab Salil & Ors v Verve Suites Mont’ Kiara Management Corp, it was decided that management corporations and joint management bodies (JMBs) could ban short-term rentals through their own house rules.

Q: Isn’t that prohibition of short-term rentals a violation of my right as owner of my unit?

A:

The Federal Court’s decision in Innab Salil reinforces the entitlement of management corporations and bodies under the Strata Management Act 2013 (“SMA 2013”) to create by-laws restricting the engagement in short-term rentals of the owner’s units.
Management bodies can now create by-laws with the intention of curbing short-term rentals in the buildings under its management.

Q: If the State Authority permits the use of the land of which the building is built for commercial purposes, can the House Rules prohibit the owners from doing short-term rental. Are those House Rules valid?

A:

Even if the building is built on a land slated for commercial use, the Management Corporation or bodies established under the SMA 2013 may via AGM pass by-laws prohibiting use of the unit for short-term rental purpose.

Q: What if I ignore the house rules of the condominium’s management and continue to rent out my unit to short-term renters?

A: The Management Corporations, JMB or developer may obtain an injunction restraining you from so doing. They may also via section 32(3)(i) of SMA 2013 imposes fine of not exceeding RM200 for breach of the by-laws.

Q: What is the duration of short-term rentals?

A: The duration of short-term rentals are typically a few nights or weeks.

Q: What is the advice for someone who intends to invest in property for short-term rental business purpose?

A: Homebuyers who intends to invest in short-term rental business should take necessary steps to ensure the management of the property allows such rental to begin with.

Sorotan Terkini

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILELGAL MONEYLENDERS – WHEN LOANS CROSS THE LINE: KEY LESSONS FROM SHIM VUI GEH V DAYANG MASTURAH ON ILLEGAL MONEYLENDING AND PROPERTY SECURITY

Can a simple loan lead to a legal battle over property ownership? This case reveals how improper security arrangements and high-interest rates can turn financial help into a courtroom showdown, highlighting the critical importance of understanding loan agreements and compliance with the law.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami