Case Update: Perbadanan Pengurusan Lojing Heights 1 v Dazizah Binti Muda [2020]
FACTS:
The MC brought a claim against the Defendant for RM16,723.00 as outstanding charges from 2017 to 2020. The MC obtained a summary judgment on 10.2.2021. Aggrieved with the decision, the Defendant (Appellant) appealed to High Court, and subsequently to Court of Appeal, raising the following issues, among others: –
- Non-issuance of Form 15;
- Non-issuance of Form 20;
- MC’s failure to sue co-proprietor;
- Irregularities in Statement of Account;
- Charges not determined in AGM
The author appeared and argued for the Appellant in Court of Appeal on 21.8.2023 and successfully set aside the summary judgment. The matter was later remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for trial.
DECISION:
On 29.3.2024, the Magistrates’ Court ruled that MC failed to prove its claim against the Defendant and dismissed the MC’s claims, with reasonings as follows, among others: –
- MC has no right to choose against whom they wish to sue/claim in a co-owned unit;
- Form 15 and Form 20 which are preconditions in initiating the suit before the court were not properly served and/or placed;
- Past payment and silence cannot stand as a waiver of a parcel owner’s rights under SMA 2013;
WHAT’S NEXT:
The author resonates with the decision. MC or appointed property management company ought to be cautious when dealing with the statutory steps in recording, enforcing, and pursuing outstanding charges and contributions to sinking fund. Proprietors are not entirely shut off from challenging any purported outstanding charges just because they are statutory in nature, if the court finds an inch of non-compliance of the mandatory procedure or seeable human errors which could jeopardise the proprietor’s rights, then they will be questioned and subject to scrutiny by the court.