Brickworks Realty Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Hatten Square Lot 1348 v Tribunal Pengurusan Strata Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan & (Appeal Suit No.: W-01(A)-477-07/2024)
Facts
1. The Appellant, a parcel owner in Hatten Square Lot 1348 whereby the Respondent here is the Management Corporation (“MC”) had filed a Tribunal Claim in respect of the following issues:
(a) that JMC’s resolution in fixing different rates for different types of parcels do not conform to Section 21 and Section 25 of the Strata Management Act 2013 (“Claim 1”);
(b) that the MC did not comply with section IV Article 53 of the Strata Management Act 2013 by issuing invoice under the name of Developer prior to maintenance account and a sinking fund account have been opened in the name of the Applicant (“Claim 2”);
(c) that the MC did not comply with the Section 12, Second Schedule Strata Management Act 2013 with regard to notice on annual general meeting (“Claim 3”); and
(d) that a copy of strata roll to be provided to verify the total share units of the development (“Claim 4”).
2. The Tribunal allowed the Appellant’s claim by nullifying the resolutions passed by the JMB during the JMB period concerning the imposition of multiple rates and directing that a copy of the strata roll be furnished to the Appellant.
3. The MC thereafter filed an Application for Judicial Review with regards to the said claims allowed by the Tribunal.
High Court
- The High Court had allowed the Judicial review on the basis that first the JMB is entitled to implement and impose multiple rates for parcels of significantly different purposes applying the principles propounded in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor V. Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and Another Appeal [2024] 3 CLJ 177;
- That the strata roll contains private and confidential information about all parcels and ought to only be accessible to the Developer and/or the MC and not an individual parcel owner as it is not a publicly available document;
- The High Court further found that the rights to demand an inspection of the strata roll is clearly absent under the SMA 2013 and such rights are confined to certain specific items as listed under the SMA 2013;
- The High Court further found that what the SMA 2013 does not expressly or impliedly authorize is to be taken to be prohibited and includes the absence of a provision allowing for the strata roll to be extended and inspected by a parcel owner.
Court of Appeal
- The Parcel Owner had appealed against the decision of the High Court;
- The Court of Appeal had allowed the Parcel Owner’s appeal in part whereby the Court of Appeal found that since the powers of the JMB to implement and impose multiple rates of charges are not provided for under the SMA 2013, the JMB is therefore not empowered to implement and impose multiple rates;
- The Court of Appeal further found that such powers to implement and impose multiple rates of charges are specifically conferred upon the MC and not the JMB as stipulated under Section 60(3)(b) of the SMA 2013;
- The High Court’s decision quashing the Tribunal’s order requiring the MC to furnish the strata roll to the Appellant was upheld, on the basis that the Appellant, as a proprietor, was not entitled to obtain a copy of the strata roll.
TAKEAWAY
- The ruling by the Court of Appeal makes it clear that the Strata Roll need ought to not be divulged to a parcel owner as the strata roll contains private and confidential information of all owners;
- The ruling by the Court of Appeal on the JMB’s empowerment to implement multiple rates of charges demonstrates the conflicting views of the recent Court of Appeal decisions on both the JMB’s and MC’s powers to implement multiple rates.
Note: Motion for Leave to Appeal to the Federal Court has been filed to challenge the decision regarding the JMB’s power to implement and impose multiple rates for parcels of significantly different use. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal’s determination on the strata roll issue remains binding and in full force and effect.
