Can 115 parking bays attached to one utility room be claimed as common property?

A small utility room attached to 115 parking bays may raise questions for owners in a mixed development. But the number of bays, or the belief that they should serve residents, does not by itself establish that they are common property.

In the First Residence dispute, the High Court examined the registered title, strata documents and evidence supporting a challenge to that ownership. The MC and purchasers failed to establish their claims.

What was the dispute about?

The case concerned Utility 1, a room measuring 15.42 square metres, together with 115 accessory parking parcels at First Residence in Kepong.

TSI Property Management Sdn Bhd was the registered proprietor. The MC and a group of purchasers brought separate suits, which were heard together, seeking to challenge the transaction and have the property treated as common property.

They alleged, among other things, that the parcels had been wrongfully created and sold, that the parking bays were not used in conjunction with the utility room, and that the development lacked the visitor parking promised to purchasers.

Why did the common property claim fail?

In its judgment dated 25 June 2026, the High Court found that the strata documents identified Utility 1 as a parcel and the parking bays as accessory parcels. The claimants had not established that the disputed property was common property or that the registered title should be set aside.

The court also rejected the fraud allegations on the evidence. An allegation that the authorities had been misled required proof. The claimants did not call the relevant officers to support their allegation that the approvals or title had been procured through deception.

The court applied Target Term Sdn Bhd v Waldorf and Windsor Management Corporation when considering the parking operation. It treated the commercial parking arrangement as granting licences to users, rather than an unlawful independent dealing in the accessory parcels. The fact that the bays were used for a parking business did not, on these facts, convert them into common property.

The MC also faced a separate difficulty: the court held that it lacked standing to seek the transfer to itself of property registered as an individual parcel. Although the purchasers’ claims were also considered, those claims failed on their merits.

What about the alleged shortage of parking?

The court found that a shortage had not been proved against the applicable development requirements. It also rejected the claim that the promised three-tier security system had not been provided; the evidence showed that the system existed and continued to function.

Both claims were dismissed. The MC was ordered to pay RM60,000 in costs, subject to allocatur, while no costs order was made against the purchasers in their suit.

The registered owner’s counterclaim against the MC for trespass and related relief was also dismissed. Success in defending its title did not automatically establish that separate claim.

What should management check before claiming common property?

Start with the documents before treating disputed parking bays as belonging to everyone. Obtain the strata title, certified strata plan and relevant sale agreements. Check whether the exact bays are shown as accessory parcels, common property or part of another parcel.

If the complaint is that visitor parking promised to purchasers has disappeared, identify the promise or approval condition relied on. Keep the relevant brochures, agreements, approved plans and correspondence. The court needs evidence showing what was required and how the development failed to provide it.

Before commencing proceedings, establish who should bring the claim. A claim concerning the MC’s management duties may differ from a purchaser’s claim based on contractual promises or alleged fraud.

Management should also obtain advice before blocking access, collecting rent or taking control of disputed bays. Believing that the bays ought to be common property does not settle their legal ownership.

This decision does not make every registered title immune from challenge. It shows why a challenge must be supported by the correct documents, evidence and legal basis.

If your development faces a dispute over parking bays or common property, Messrs. Koo Jia Hung can assist in reviewing the ownership documents and available remedies.

Share this article