Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

NUISANCE – EVALUATING LEGAL NUISANCE IN GATED COMMUNITIES

ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIO

X, a homeowner in a gated community, is required along with other residents to pay a monthly fee of RM250.00 to the Residents’ Association for security and maintenance. The community features a guard house and two boom gates as the sole access point. Residents have agreed that non-payment of the fee will result in loss of security services, including assistance from the guards in operating the gates. After ceasing payment, X found himself needing to manually operate the boom gates.

The legal question posed is whether the setup of the guard house and boom gates constitutes an actionable nuisance for X.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES & LAW

• Under common law, neither actionable obstruction nor actionable private nuisance applies to cases of mere inconvenience. • There must be a consideration of the community’s interest, which typically outweighs individual inconveniences, particularly in security measures. • Controlled access within a defined area, especially for security reasons, is legally permissible. A legal issue arises only when access to a public area is completely denied to all by a barricade.

APPLICATION TO THE SCENARIO

In X’s case, the inconvenience of manually operating the gate does not constitute a legal obstruction. Therefore, X does not have grounds for an actionable nuisance against the Residents’ Association due to the nature of the inconvenience being non-obstructive and the access control being for a legitimate security purpose.

REFERENCE CASES

• Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’ Villa Equestrian [2015] MLJU 230: This case supports the position that operational inconveniences within managed communities do not typically rise to the level of legal nuisances. • George Philip & Ors v Subbammal & Ors AIR 1957 Tra-Co 281: This case underscores the legal distinction between minor inconveniences and significant obstructions or nuisances under common law.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

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.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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.

Read More »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们