Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

STRATA MANAGEMENT – COMMON PROPERTY CONUNDRUM: CENTRALIZED AC COSTS AND THE STRATA MANAGEMENT DEBATE

Illustrative Scenario

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.

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.

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.

Key Issues

  • Is the Defendant obligated to cover the costs and expenses associated with operating and maintaining the centralized air conditioning facilities (CACF)?
  • Should the Defendant seek reimbursement for the maintenance and electricity charges related to the CACF?

Application to the Scenario

  • Several private parcels in Tower B are owned and occupied by different occupiers. As long as the CACF in Tower B serves two or more occupiers of private parcels, it should be classified as common property.
  • The argument of “exclusive use” is not supported by any statute, nor does it make logical or legal sense. Enforcing such an argument would lead to unnecessary hardship, confusion, and absurdities in the application of the Strata Management Act 2013 or the Strata Titles Act 1985.

The court is likely to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim based on these considerations.

Reference Cases

  • 3 Two Square Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan 3 Two Square & Ors [2018] MLJU 111, HC (followed)
  • Julian-Armitage v The Proprietors Astor Centre BUP No 8932 [1998] QCA 111, CA (referred)
  • Perbadanan Pengurusan 3 Two Square v 3 Two Square Sdn Bhd & Anor and another civil [2019] MLJU 1983, CA (followed)

Legislation Referred to

  • Strata Management Act 2013 ss 2, 17, 59(1), (1)(a), (3)(b), (6)
  • Strata Titles Act 1985 ss 4, 43(1)(a)

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.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us