Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

STRATA TITLE – MANAGEMENT – TRESPASS AND NUISANCE

Q: My neighbour rented out his condominium unit to university students. He partitioned his units and renovation works were carried out for a very long period of time. They often went on through the night and early hours of the day. This had affected my family and I so badly. The renovation too caused damage to my house. When the renovation stops, students moved in. The amount of people that would usually live in such a space doubled. The noise level was unbearable. We made complaints to the management corporation but nothing was done. What can I do?

You can make up a case for trespass and nuisance against your neighbour.

Trespass – Complaint on Renovation which Caused Damage

  • STEP 1 – Lodge a complaint against the local authorities to investigate the damage caused by the renovation works. The local authorities will carry out investigation and issue letters to the respective parties.
    The letters from the local authorities would be evidence that renovation was carried out and whether it was approved or not approved. If it is not approved, the local authorities will also issue notices instructing the respective parties to remove of the illegal renovation.
  • STEP 2 – Take pictures of the damage to your unit. Obtain expert witness eg. contractors to confirm the damage is caused by the renovation carried out by your neighbour.
  • STEP 3 – If the damage persists or if no compliance is made by the neighbour, you may seek legal redress against your neigbour for trespass.

Trespass is actionable per se, without the need to prove special damages.

Nuisance – Complaint on Illegal Renovation and Unbearable Noise from Students

  • STEP 1 – Lodge police reports and write to local authorities on the unbearable noise level and nuisance. Get the police to investigate. Identify the names of the investigating officers so that they can be later called to testify as witness.
  • STEP 2 – Obtain record of noise in your unit such as video or audio recordings. However, there is no compulsory need for scientific or technical evidence that the noise generated was beyond tolerable levels. The test for private nuisance is whether the noise breached levels of tolerance of decent society and community.

Action against Management Corporation or JMB

Legal action may also be taken against the management under the Strata Management Act 2013. The Management has the duty to ensure there is no nuisance (See Para 8(3) of the 3rd Schedule of the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015.)

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