Case Update: Yii Sing Chiu v Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors
The author has previously written on the reported case of Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and Another Appeal [2024] 2 MLRA 196 (see: https://koojiahung.com.my/2024/01/12/court-of-appeal-developer-can-impose-different-rates-of-charges-during-preliminary-management-period/ and https://koojiahung.com.my/2023/12/02/court-of-appeal-management-corporation-can-impose-different-rates-of-charges/) regarding imposition of different rates of charges by Developer and Management Corporation in a mixed development.
On 24.8.2023, the proprietor filed two notices of motion in the Federal Court. The proprietor posed 9 questions of law. Some of the pertinent questions are reproduced below: –
- Whether on a true and correct interpretation of sub-section 60(3)(b) of the Strata Management Act 2013, the phrase “parcels which are used for significantly different purposes” refers to a significantly different purpose from its original purpose as stated in the respective strata titles where share units have been assigned?
- In a single mixed strata development project comprising residential and commercial parcels where share units have been assigned, whether the Strata Management Act 2013 empowers the Management Corporation to determine different rates for the maintenance charges for different types of parcels based on exclusive usage or non-usage of the common property where no limited common property has been lawfully designated under Section 17A of the Strata Titles Act 1985 read together with Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Strata Management Act 2013?
- For the purposes of determining the rate of maintenance charges in a mixed strata development project, does the Developer, during the preliminary management period, have the power to separate the total expenses incurred or estimated to be incurred by the different types of parcels under the Strata Management Act 2013 where no limited common property has been lawfully designated?
On 19.3.2024, the Federal Court panel comprised of Y.A. Tan Sri Datuk Nallini Pathmanathan, HMP, Y.A. Dato’ Mary Lim Thiam Suan, HMP, and Y.A. Dato Rhodzariah Binti Bujang, HMP, dismissed the two notices of motion.
WHAT’S NEXT?
The decision once again fortified the Court of Appeal’s landmark decision which ruled that the Developer and the Management Corporation are entitled to impose different rates of charges.
Whether the same theme applies to the Joint Management Body is yet to be seen.