Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

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

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN