Can an owner sue the MC for nuisance over its debt collection methods?

A management corporation (MC) is entitled to collect charges properly due. But can the way it pursues an owner amount to nuisance? The answer depends on what management actually does and whether it acts within its legal powers.

In Mok Siou Min v Hampshire Residences Management Corporation & Ors [2018] 3 MLRH 458, an owner succeeded in nuisance against the MC. The court considered the combined effect of its debt collection conduct, including access-card restrictions, recovery proceedings and approaches to tenants.

Case: Mok Siou Min v Hampshire Residences Management Corporation & Ors [2018] 3 MLRH 458 | High Court, Kuala Lumpur | 28 February 2018

How did the dispute arise?

An explosion at a neighbouring development damaged the owner’s two units. The JMB received RM19,000 in insurance proceeds relating to the units. The owner’s representative instructed that the money be applied against outstanding charges.

The MC later pursued charges through two court actions and repeatedly deactivated the units’ access cards. Its staff also approached the tenants to ask them to pay rent directly to the MC. The owner sued the MC for nuisance and brought a conspiracy claim against individual council members.

Why did the conduct amount to nuisance?

The court examined the evidence as a whole. It did not decide the case solely on the inconvenience of a deactivated card. The handling of the insurance money, the basis of the recovery actions and the approaches to tenants also mattered.

The MC’s position that the insurance claim had not been approved or paid was inconsistent with evidence that the JMB had received the RM19,000. The court considered that history when assessing the conduct complained of.

The court also found that management had not complied with the required payment notices before deactivating the cards. It read paragraph 6(4) with paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Third Schedule to the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015. The provision allowing deactivation without further notice did not remove the preceding payment notice and its 14-day period. The development’s own house rules imposed additional notice requirements.

The court distinguished Au Kean Hoe, which concerned inconvenience at a boom gate. It found that the combined conduct in Mok Siou Min went further and established nuisance. The decision does not make every access-card restriction unlawful.

What did the court order?

The MC had to return RM19,000, pay general damages to be assessed and pay RM20,000 in costs. The RM20,000 was a costs award, not the amount of damages. The conspiracy claim against the individual council members failed for lack of cogent evidence.

Practical checks before a nuisance dispute escalates

Before taking enforcement action, management should check the account against payment records and any relevant insurance proceeds or credits. If the account is disputed, identify the disputed entries and the documents supporting them. An outstanding balance does not answer every question about the recovery method.

Check the legal basis for each proposed step. Confirm the required notice, service and expiry period before instructing security to restrict an access card. Asking a tenant to redirect rent requires its own legal basis; arrears do not authorise every form of pressure.

Owners should keep a dated record of the restrictions, notices, payment statements and communications with management or tenants. These records help explain what happened, how long it continued and how it affected use of the unit. The court will need evidence of the actual conduct, not simply a description of management as unreasonable.

A disagreement with management does not automatically establish nuisance or remove the obligation to pay charges properly due. Equally, a right to collect charges does not justify methods outside the MC’s lawful powers.

Share this article