Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

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.

Recent Post

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们