Can an MC recover maintenance arrears going back more than 20 years?

An owner receives a demand for maintenance arrears accumulated over many years. Can the owner reject the older charges simply because they arose more than six years ago?

In Alexander Vareed Charles v Perbadanan Pengurusan Kondominium [2026] CLJU 1923, the High Court upheld recovery of arrears recorded in an account dating back to 2004. The decision illustrates why the age of a charge does not, by itself, resolve a limitation defence where the court finds a continuing running account.

What happened?

The dispute concerned a unit at Marina View Villas. In May 2024, the management corporation served Form 20 demanding RM44,836.80. By March 2025, the amount claimed had increased to RM47,888.39.

The Magistrates’ Court granted summary judgment for the latter sum. Summary judgment allows a claim to be decided without a full trial where the defendant fails to raise a genuine issue requiring trial.

The owner appealed. Among other things, he disputed the difference between the figures, argued that older arrears were time-barred, questioned the MC’s right to recover charges predating its incorporation and complained about unsatisfactory maintenance.

Why could the MC recover the maintenance arrears?

On 12 June 2026, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the RM47,888.39 judgment, with appeal costs of RM8,000 subject to allocatur.

The court found that the account had remained open and active, with maintenance charges continuing to be imposed monthly. Applying existing Court of Appeal authorities on running accounts, it rejected the argument that the earlier arrears were barred merely because they were more than six years old.

The court also accepted the MC’s entitlement, under the statutory management framework, to recover arrears arising before its incorporation. Therefore, a change in the body managing the development did not extinguish the owner’s outstanding liability.

The different figures did not create a genuine dispute either. They related to different calculation dates, and the sum awarded was pleaded and supported by the statement of account. The court found no genuine challenge to its computation.

What if the building was poorly maintained?

The court rejected dissatisfaction with maintenance as a defence to withholding statutory charges. An owner’s complaints about management should be pursued through the available legal remedies; they do not automatically cancel the obligation to pay.

However, the decision does not mean that every historical bill is correct or that every limitation defence must fail. Management must still establish its claim. Here, the court found that the documents supported the debt and that the owner had not raised a genuine issue requiring trial.

What should owners and management bodies do about maintenance arrears?

For an owner, the useful first step is to obtain the full statement of account and compare it with payment receipts and bank records. If the balance is wrong, identify the particular payment, duplicate entry or charge in dispute. A general statement that the bill is too old or management is unsatisfactory may not answer a properly supported claim.

For an incoming committee, do not write off old balances simply because they arose under a previous management body. Obtain the earlier ledgers, receipts and handover records so that the balance can be traced. If those records are incomplete, investigate the gaps before issuing a demand.

An MC considering recovery should also explain how the amount has changed between its demand and the court claim. A clear, reconciled account helps distinguish a genuine dispute from a bare denial.

If your development is dealing with longstanding arrears, Messrs. Koo Jia Hung can advise on the records, recovery options and any defence raised.

Share this article