Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

1. Summary and Facts:
JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors” [2025] 12 MLJ 51 concerned a dispute over entitlement to compensation monies paid following the compulsory acquisition part of a strata development before the issuance of strata titles. The defendant was the developer and registered proprietor of Kelana Square Business Centre, while the plaintiff was the Joint Management Body (“JMB”) established to manage the common property. When 2,284.582 square meters of the development was acquired by the Selangor State Authority for the LRT 3 project under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, the entire compensation sum of RM13,562,092 was paid to the developer as registered owner. The JMB disputed the developer’s entitlement to the whole sum, contending that 1,121 square meters of the acquired land constituted common property including the vacant land or rubbish chambers and that the developer therefore held RM6,053,400 of the compensation on constructive trust for the JMB and also for exemplary damages.

2. Legal Issues:
• Whether part of the acquired land is common property;
• Whether the Plaintiff is now estopped from claiming a portion of the compensation monies for its failure to participate in the inquiry to determine compensation;
• Whether the acquired land belonged only to the defendant in that it comprised of car parks only; or
• Whether the plaintiff’s claim can be computed based on market value determined by the Land Administration at the inquiry.

3. Court’s Findings:
• The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
On the issue of estoppel, the JMB was never served with statutory notices under the Land Acquisition Act. Section 37 proceedings were therefore inapplicable. The JMB’s claim was not a land reference, but an equitable claim that the developer held part of the compensation as constructive trustee.
• Relying on expert evidence from licensed surveyors and corroborating documentary records (including meeting minutes chaired by the developer’s representative), the Court found that the acquired land comprised:
• 1,163 sq metres of car parks (belonging to the developer); and
• 1,121 sq metres of common property.
• Although a management corporation had not yet been formed, the JMB had a proprietary interest in common property and was the predecessor to the future management corporation under the Strata Titles Act 1985. As the developer had received compensation for land that did not belong to it, it would be unconscionable to retain the entire sum. The Court therefore held that RM6,053,400 was held on constructive trust for the JMB.

4. Practical Implications:
This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory land acquisition compensation does not conclusively determine beneficial entitlement, particularly within the context of strata developments, whereby:
• Developers who receive compensation for compulsorily acquired land must account for common property interests, even before strata titles are issued.
• JMB’s have standing to assert proprietary and equitable claims over common property compensation.
• Failure to involve a JMB in land acquisition proceedings does not bar later equitable claims.
• Courts will readily impose a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
zh_TWZH