Your balcony is your neighbour’s roof. Who pays when it leaks?

Balcony leakage can damage the unit below. However, sheltering that unit does not automatically make the balcony common property or the management corporation’s responsibility.

In Chew Chin Tai & Anor v Perbadanan Pengurusan Kondominium Selat Horizon, the High Court at Melaka dismissed the owners’ attempt to make the MC responsible for a leaking penthouse balcony. The Court ordered the owners to reimburse RM19,800 in repair costs and pay RM10,000 in court costs.

The decision, dated 8 April 2026, concerned both the legal status of the balcony and the owners’ attempt to reopen a dispute the courts had already decided.

What caused the balcony leakage dispute?

The owners of a lower-floor unit complained that water was leaking into their property from the penthouse balcony above.

An inspection led to a Form 28 identifying the balcony as the source. A technical report subsequently concluded that the balcony’s waterproofing had failed and that the approved plans placed the balcony within the penthouse parcel.

The Strata Management Tribunal ordered the penthouse owners to carry out repairs at their own cost. If they failed to do so within the stipulated period, the MC was to undertake the works and recover the costs from them.

The owners challenged the award in court, arguing that the balcony formed part of the roof and was therefore the MC’s responsibility. That challenge failed, leaving the repair obligation in place.

After the owners did not carry out the required repairs, the MC arranged the works and charged them RM19,800. The owners then brought a further claim against the MC under section 59 of the Strata Management Act 2013.

Why did the further balcony leakage claim fail?

The earlier proceedings had already determined the balcony’s status and responsibility for its repair. This was the main reason the further claim failed. The owners could not obtain a fresh decision on the same issue simply by presenting their claim differently.

The Court also explained that the claim would fail on its merits. Section 59 requires the MC to maintain and repair common property. It does not make the MC responsible for every structure from which damage may affect another unit.

Here, the evidence placed the balcony within the owners’ parcel. Its position above another unit did not, by itself, turn it into common property. The owners had not produced evidence displacing the technical report and plans relied upon in the earlier proceedings.

The MC’s decision to carry out the repairs did not mean that it had accepted responsibility for paying for them. It acted under the Tribunal’s order, which required it to step in if the owners failed to repair and allowed it to recover the cost.

Balcony leakage: what should owners and management bodies check?

If you receive a complaint about balcony leakage, ask for the inspection findings and any Form 28 issued. Establish what is leaking and what repairs the inspection recommends. Photographs of a damp ceiling may show the damage, but you still need to identify the source and cause.

If the parties disagree about responsibility, ask to see the relevant plans showing whether the affected area belongs to a parcel or forms part of the common property. Descriptions such as “balcony”, “roof” or “terrace” are not enough on their own to decide who must pay.

An MC arranging repairs should keep the documents explaining its authority to act, together with quotations, approvals, invoices and proof of payment. In this case, the Tribunal’s order and the repair records supported recovery of the RM19,800 from the owners.

Where a Tribunal or court has already made an order, check exactly what it requires before refusing repairs or starting another claim. Repeating the same argument in a different form may add court costs without changing the repair obligation.

Share this article