Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

Summary and Facts
In Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 948, the dispute involved a mixed development called Pearl Suria, which comprised residential units, a shopping mall, and a car park. The developer, Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd, and the management corporation imposed different maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions for residential and commercial parcels, reflecting their distinct purposes and benefits.

A residential owner, Yii, challenged this arrangement, and the High Court ruled that uniform rates must apply. Dissatisfied, the developer and management corporation appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the differentiated rates were lawful and justified under the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA 2013).

Legal Issues
i. Can developers impose different maintenance and sinking fund rates for residential and commercial parcels during the preliminary management period under the SMA 2013?
ii. Is a management corporation allowed to set different rates for parcels based on their significantly different purposes?

Court Findings

  • The SMA 2013 allows developers and management corporations to impose different rates for maintenance and sinking fund contributions in mixed developments based on the distinct purposes and benefits of parcels.
  • Charges must reflect actual use and benefits. Residential owners pay for exclusive facilities, while commercial owners are not burdened with unrelated costs.
  • Budgets must clearly separate expenses for shared and exclusive facilities, ensuring fairness and compliance.
  • The High Court wrongly required uniform rates and failed to apply the “significantly different purposes” test under the SMA 2013.

Practical Implications
Developers must set and justify differentiated rates transparently, ensuring alignment with parcel usage and benefits. Management corporations should maintain clear and detailed budgets to support varied rates for mixed developments, ensuring fairness and compliance with the law. Property owners should understand that charges may vary based on parcel type and usage rights in mixed developments. Legal practitioners should advise clients on the proper application of the SMA 2013 and the importance of equitable cost allocation.

This decision reinforces fair cost-sharing practices while balancing the rights of all stakeholders in mixed strata developments.

Reference Case and Legislation

  • Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 948
  • Muhamad Nazri bin Muhamad v JMB Menara Rajawali & Anor [2020] 3 MLJ 645; [2019] 10 CLJ 547, CA (distd)

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