The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a parcel located in Tower A of Menara UOA Bangsar. Tower A comprises 426 office parcels, while Tower B includes 3 office parcels, 9 retail parcels in the podium, and 2 parcels of multi-storey elevated car parks. The Defendant is the Management Body incorporated under Section 17 of the Strata Management Act 2013<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tower A does not have centralized air-conditioning facilities (CACF); instead, chilled air is only supplied to common areas such as lift lobbies and corridors. Therefore, private parcel owners in Tower A must maintain their own individual air conditioning units. On the other hand, Tower B is equipped with a large CACF that serves chilled air to both common areas and some private parcels via air ducts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Plaintiff has raised concerns that the Defendant has unlawfully utilized funds from the maintenance account to operate, maintain, and service the CACF that benefits only certain parcels in Tower B. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant should seek reimbursement from the private parcel owners who benefit from the CACF.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court is likely to dismiss the Plaintiff\u2019s claim based on these considerations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This update outlines the potential legal interpretation regarding the responsibilities of a Management Body in maintaining centralized air conditioning facilities within a strata development, particularly when such facilities are used by multiple private parcel owners. The courts are likely to consider CACF serving multiple occupiers as common property, thereby making the Management Body responsible for its maintenance without needing reimbursement from individual parcel owners.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In a recent legal dispute, the classification of centralized air conditioning facilities (CACF) as common property has come under scrutiny. The Plaintiff, a parcel owner in Tower A of Menara UOA Bangsar, challenged the Management Body’s use of maintenance funds for the upkeep of CACF, which primarily benefits parcels in Tower B. The court is likely to dismiss the Plaintiff\u2019s claim, reinforcing the principle that as long as CACF serves two or more occupiers, it is deemed common property, thus falling under the Management Body’s purview without requiring reimbursement from individual parcel owners.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5583,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1567,1579,1574],"tags":[3583],"class_list":["post-5582","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-property-law","category-real-estate","category-strata","tag-strata-management"],"yoast_head":"\nKey Issues<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Application to the Scenario<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Reference Cases<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Legislation Referred to<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n