Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

PROPERTY LAW – STRATA MANAGEMENT ACT 2013 – REGULATING SHORT-TERM RENTALS: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE ON STRATA MANAGEMENT AND STATE LAWS

ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIO

The Management Corporation of “Happy Suites”, established under the Strata Titles Act 1985, manages a development designated for commercial use as service apartments by state authority’s mandate as per section 120 of the National Land Code 1965 (“NLC 1965”). Subsequently, during an Extraordinary General Meeting, a special resolution was adopted introducing a “House Rule” that restricts the use of units exclusively to service suites, prohibiting business activities, short-term rentals or other uses that could potentially damage the reputation of Happy Suites. Despite this, X has continued to use his units for commercial short-term rentals.

Legal Principles & Law:

• The Extraordinary General Meeting was held under the Strata Management Act 2013 (“SMA 2013”). The SMA 2013 is recognized as social legislation to enhance strata community living. As such, the SMA 2013 calls for a liberal interpretation that prioritizes community well-being.

• The Federal Court in Malaysia prefers the approach of harmonisation of status and suggests that section 120 of the NLC 1965 and section 70 of the SMA 2013 should be read together harmoniously, indicating that rights granted by one law can be restricted by another for broader community benefits.

• As such, the Management Corporation has the authority to enact by-laws under Section 70 of the SMA 2013, addressing safety and security concerns. Such by-laws are deemed justifiable and lawful even if they impose restrictions beyond those set by the State Authority.

Reference Cases:

• Federal Court (Putrajaya) – Innab Salil & Ors v. Verve Suites Mont’ Kiara Management Corporation [2020] MLJU 1563; [2020] 12 MLJ 16

• Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Mentari Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor and other appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 281

• Weng Lee Granite Quarry Sdn. Bhd. v. Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai [2020] 1 MLJ 211

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »
3 4 月 ,2025 尚無留言

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »
24 2 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »
24 2 月 ,2025 尚無留言

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »
24 2 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
24 2 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们