Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

PROPERTY LAW – MANAGEMENT CORPORATION – STRATA MANAGEMENT ACT 2013

It is common knowledge that a Management Corporation (“MC”) is in charge with maintenance and management of the common properties of a condominium or strata development.

Q: Can a MC be compelled to supply natural gas (a service previously provided by the developer of the project)? Can a MC be compelled to make payments for license to supply natural gas?

A: Section 59(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 (“SMA 2013”) provides as follows:

The powers of the MC:

  1. a) to collect the Charges from the proprietors in proportion to the share units or provisional share units of their respective parcels or provisional blocks;
  2. b) to collect the contribution to the sinking fund from the proprietors of an amount equivalent to ten percent of the Charges;
  3. c) to authorize expenditure for the carrying out of the maintenance and management of the subdivided buildings or lands and the common property;….

It does not include supplying natural gas.

Q: Can the MC collect gas charges?

A: No. s.59(2) SMA 2013 only allows MC to collect maintenance charges and sinking funds. Not charges related to the supply of natural gas.

The powers of a MC cannot be expanded. If it is not expressly or impliedly permitted by the SMA 2013, it is considered prohibited.

Q: Can the MC take over and charge natural gas supply fee?

A: No. The MC lacks the power to take over the supply and management of the gas supply.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

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 »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

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 »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

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 »
12 January ,2025 No Comments

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 »
1 January ,2025 No Comments

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 »
1 January ,2025 No Comments

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 »
1 January ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us