Still charging by square feet? Share units remain the legal basis.

The requirement for a management corporation (MC) to calculate maintenance charges by reference to share units is longstanding. Yet disputes still arise when a development moves away from square-foot billing, particularly where the change increases an owner’s monthly payment.

Can an owner insist that management retain the old calculation until their concerns about the share-unit allocation are resolved?

In R Rajakumari V Rajaratnam v Tang Kai Uei & Ors [2026] CLJU 2789, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur reaffirmed the established principle and explained why the owner’s disagreement did not justify putting implementation on hold.

What happened?

The owner held two parcels in Diamond Residences. Following its annual general meeting (AGM), the MC introduced charges calculated at RM2.51 per share unit from 1 January 2023, replacing its previous square-foot calculation.

The change increased the amount payable for both properties.

The owner disputed her share-unit allocation and whether the new rate had been properly approved. She brought a claim before the Strata Management Tribunal seeking, among other things, restoration of the previous calculation, a refund of excess payments and rectification of her share-unit allocation.

The Tribunal dismissed her claim. She then applied to the High Court to set aside its decision.

Share units: an established requirement, reaffirmed

The High Court dismissed the application on 5 August 2026.

The court referred to section 59(2)(a) of the Strata Management Act 2013, which requires the MC to collect charges in proportion to the share units of the respective parcels.

It described this position as well settled, relying particularly on Ekuiti Setegap Sdn Bhd v Plaza 393 Management Corp [2018] 4 MLJ 284. In that earlier decision, the Court of Appeal explained that share units form the statutory basis of calculation. An AGM resolution cannot authorise a square-foot calculation contrary to the statute.

The court also referred to Endah Parade and Target Term.

Accordingly, the fact that the previous calculation produced a lower bill did not entitle the owner to insist that it continue.

Could the disputed allocation delay implementation?

The share units for Diamond Residences had been determined since 2008.

The court held that dissatisfaction with those allocations was a matter to be taken up with the relevant authorities. It did not require the MC to suspend implementation of share-unit billing.

The distinction matters: challenging the allocation and applying the existing allocation are separate matters. An unresolved objection did not, on these facts, relieve the MC of its statutory obligation.

The rate still had to be properly decided

The court separately examined whether the rate of RM2.51 per share unit had been approved.

On the evidence, the AGM had approved the budget and decided on the new rate, subject to confirmation by the Commissioner of Buildings. That confirmation was obtained before the charges took effect.

The court therefore found that the statutory requirements had been met. The obligation to use share units did not dispense with the need to properly determine the rate.

What should owners and management bodies take note of?

For owners, the first step is to identify what is being disputed. Is management using the wrong share-unit figure? Is the rate different from what the AGM approved? Or is the objection to the allocation recorded for the property itself?

Ask for a breakdown of the bill and compare it with the relevant share-unit record, AGM minutes and approved rate. This helps direct the complaint to the actual problem.

For management bodies, explain the change through a simple comparison of the old and new bills. Show the share units used, the approved rate, the sinking fund contribution and the commencement date. Keep the supporting budget and AGM records readily available.

This case reinforces compliance with an existing requirement. It concerns the basis of calculation and should not be read as a blanket prohibition on different rates for parcels used for significantly different purposes. That remains a separate question governed by the applicable statutory provisions and facts.

Share this article