Hai Guan Chan Sdn Bhd v Hai Guan Chan Sdn Bhd (PA-24NCvC-1050-08/2025)

HAI GUAN CHAN SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 201301001210 (1031047-M)]

ETERNAL LEISURE SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 200501000575 (677620-T)]

LM ESTATE SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 200401037630 (676141-P)]

PSI PNEUMATIC CONTROL SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 199101007547 (217857-T)]

LEONG WOOI KIT [NO. K/P: 530203-07-5431]

PATRICIA LEONG SAU WAN [NO. K/P: 801220-07-5320]

DC SIGNATURE LIVINGSTYLE SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 202001002917 (1359236-K)]

POSITIVE2U SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 200801023573 (824896-V)]

LAU SOOI CHOON PROPERTIES SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 201301032120 (1061949-V)]

I-DNA BIOTECHNOLOGY (M) SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 200401024682 (663189-D)]

LIM CHIN LENG [NO. K/P: 760131-07-5283]

BLESS GROUP SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 202001012457 (1368777-U)]

MASON CAPITAL SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 200801038040 (839385-P)]

MINEPROPERTY SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 202001014674 (1370994-W)]

ASIAEURO WINES & SPIRITS SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 199901024437 (499337-X)]

WELLNESS RECIPE SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 200901019033 (862130-V)]

LEE KIAN KIONG [NO. K/P: 710729-01-5757]

LOH WEI LIAN [NO. K/P: 660714-07-5471]

LOH HUEY SEE [NO. K/P: 700813-07-5016]

LOH EWE SEING [NO. K/P: 721013-07-5125]

ALIMENTE PRODUCT PTE LTD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 199900279M (Singapore)]

SURIADIL SDN BHD [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 199601005000 (377346-M)]

SIM CHUAN AN [NO. K/P: 690424-07-5817]

SIM CHUAN LEE [NO. K/P: 701022-07-5639]

SIM SIEW LEN [NO. K/P: 670828-07-5866]

WONG WENG SOON [NO. K/P: 620912-08-5471]

NG GIM CHAI [NO. K/P: 731223-07-5368] ...PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

PESURUHJAYA BANGUNAN MAJLIS BANDARAYA

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN BAY AVENUE (327/2014PTG/PB/STRATA/SPP/63) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ENERGY TAMAGO VENTURE SDN. BHD. [NO. PENDAFTARAN SYARIKAT: 202401040600 (1586447-A)] …PENCELAH YANG DICADANGKAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosures 58 & 63) INTRODUCTION [1] There are two (2) applications filed herein-

An application on the part of the Administrator under Order 45 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) for leave to issue Writ of Possession against the parties, including Energy Tamago Venture Sdn Bhd (ETV), having possession of the common property at Bay Avenue, pursuant to the Order of Court dated 12.11.2025 (Enclosure 58); and

An application by ETV pursuant to Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(i) of the ROC 2012, seeking (i) leave to intervene in the proceedings; and (ii) an order to vary the Order of Court dated 12.11.2025 specifically in relation to the car park component thereof (Enclosure 63). [2] This Court has allowed Enclosure 58 and dismissed Enclosure 63. The reasons are as deliberated. BRIEF FACTS [3] By the High Court Order dated 12.11.2025 (Order), Justice Wendy Ooi Su Ghee has allowed the Plaintiffs' Originating Summons dated 22.8.2025 and appointed one Teoh Oo Seng as Administrator for Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue (PPBA) pursuant to Section 76 of the Strata Management Act 2013 (Administrator). [4] Subsequently, the Administrator filed Enclosure 58 seeking leave to issue a writ of possession pursuant to the Order. [5] Thereafter, ETV filed Enclosure 63 to intervene, claiming to be the lawful lessee and manager of the private car parks at Bay Avenue pursuant to a Lease Agreement dated 2 April 2025 (Lease Agreement) entered into between ETV and Bay Avenue Management Corporation (BAMC). ETV further contended that its rights under the Lease Agreement were reinforced by a Consent Order dated 21.5.2025 recorded in separate proceedings before the High Court, whereby BAMC undertook to comply fully with the terms of the Lease Agreement. [6] ETV contended that it was never made a party to the proceedings herein, was never served with any cause papers, and only became aware of the proceedings and the Order when the Administrator filed Enclosure 58 seeking leave to execute the Order against ETV, which was served on ETV. [7] Both the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant raised preliminary objections against Enclosure 63 and submitted that the application ought to be dismissed in limine. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES The Plaintiffs’ Submissions [8] The Plaintiffs submitted that ETV has absolutely no locus standi to intervene as it is not a parcel proprietor at Bay Avenue and has no right or interest on the basis of the purported Lease Agreement dated 2.4.2025, which is unlawful and fraudulent as it was entered into without the consent of the State authority and the approval of the parcel proprietors, and further, no licence was issued by the local authority for ETV to operate the car parking bays. [9] The Plaintiffs further submitted that Enclosure 63 is misconceived and an abuse of the court's process. The Court is functus officio as the cause or matter under the Originating Summons was determined with finality upon the grant of the Order dated 12.11.2025. The Plaintiffs added that Enclosure 63 was filed approximately two (2) months after the Order was perfected and is therefore it was out of time. [10] It is the submission of the Plaintiffs that ETV cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings as knowledge of the proceedings is imputable to ETV through the solicitor who acted for both PPBA and ETV in related matters. [11] Further, the Plaintiffs submitted that the amendments sought by ETV were no different from the proposed amendments previously rejected by the High Court when submitted in the draft Order dated 12.11.2025. [12] The Plaintiffs also submitted that the application under Enclosure 63 is intended to obstruct the Administrator from discharging his statutory duties under the Strata Management Act 2013 pursuant to the Order. The 1st Defendant’s Submissions [13] The 1st Defendant submitted that following the perfection of the Order dated 12.11.2025, there are no pending proceedings before this High Court as the Order had finally disposed of the Originating Summons. The Court is therefore functus officio, and there is no longer any proceeding in existence for ETV to intervene. [14] The 1st Defendant further submitted that the application to vary the Order dated 12.11.2025 was filed out of time. ETV confirmed it received the Order on 1.12.2025 and thus, any application to vary must therefore have been filed by 31.12.2025. However, Enclosure 63 was only filed on 6.1.2026, and no application for extension of time was made. [15] Thus, it is the submission of the 1st Defendant that ETV appeared to have had knowledge of the Order at least since 26.11.2025, yet offered no explanation for the delay. ETV’s Submissions [16] ETV submitted that it was never a party to the Originating Summons and had no knowledge of the proceedings until enforcement was taken against it. It only became aware of the Order when Enclosure 58 was served on ETV by the Administrator. [17] Further, ETV contended that the Preliminary Objection is founded on an unduly narrow and technical reading of the law governing intervention and referred to Order 15 Rule 6(2) of the ROC 2012, which ETV submits ought to be interpreted contextually and not as an absolute temporal bar divorced from the consequences of refusal. [18] It was also ETV's submissions that the Lease Agreement had never been lawfully terminated, as no notice of termination was issued in accordance with the contractual provisions, no allegation of breach was established against ETV, and no court order dissolved or invalidated the Lease Agreement. Thus, ETV contended that it remains the legitimate manager and operator of the car park. [19] ETV contended that the doctrine of functus officio does not apply as enforcement proceedings under Enclosure 58 remain pending and undecided. The Court cannot be said to be functus officio where enforcement proceedings are still alive and ongoing. [20] Further, ETV contended that the test under Order 15 Rule 6 of the ROC 2012 is not on ownership but whether the applicant's rights are directly affected by the proceedings. The test for locus standi, as stated by the Plaintiffs, is that ETV must be a parcel proprietor, which is a misstatement of the legal principle. [21] It was also the submissions of ETV that Order 42 Rule 13 ROC 2012 governs applications by parties to set aside or vary orders. However, in this present case, ETV was not a party to the Originating Summons and cannot be held strictly to the timelines applicable to parties. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Order Dated 12.11.2025 [22] The Order states-I. bahawa Saman Pemula Plaintif-plaintif bertarikh 22.8.2025 (lampiran 1) untuk pelantikan seorang Pentadbir bagi Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue (Defendan Kedua) dibenarkan atas terma-terma yang berikut:-

bahawa Teoh Oo Seng (No. K/P: 560304-07-5307), seorang Pengarah Urusan bagi Allied Group Property Services (Penang) Sdn Bhd, dilantikan sebagai Pentadbir bagi Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue, menurut Seksyen 76 dalam Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013, berkuatkuasa daripada tarikh Perintah ini untuk mengambil alih kuasa dan menjalankan kewajipan Perbadanan Pengurusan itu sehingga pelantikan sebuah jawatankuasa Pengurusan;

bahawa kuasa dan kewajipan bagi Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue, diambil alih dan dijalankan oleh Pentadbir bagi Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue ('Perbadanan Pengurusan'), hendaklah termasuk tetapi tidak terhad pada yang berikut:-

bahawa Pentadbir itu hendaklah mempunyai akses yang lengkap dan bebas kepada dan kawalan ke atas pejabat Perbadanan Pengurusan di mana sahaja ia terletak di atas, untuk mengambil alih dan mengendalikan kesemua akaun-akaun bank bagi Perbadanan Pengurusan, termasuklah akaun-akaun di CIMB Bank Berhad, Maybank Berhad, United Overseas Bank Berhad serta mana-mana bank atau institusi kewangan yang lain, untuk mengambil alih kawalan dan milikan daftar strata (strata roll), dokumen hakmilik, penyata akaun bank, akaun teraudit bersama dengan laporan juruaudit, akaun-akaun termasuklah akaun penyelenggaraan, akaun kumpulan wang penjelas dan akaun tempat letak kereta, dan untuk mengambil alih penyenggaraan dan pengurusan bagi petak-petak strata serta harta bersama, termasuklah ruang tempat letak kereta dan kemudahan-kemudahan yang berkenaan dengannya;

bahawa Pentadbir itu hendaklah mengutip caj penyenggaraan bulanan pada kadar RM0.85 per unit syer dan sumbangan kumpulan wang penjelas pada kadar RM0.085 per unit syer (dengan keizinan untuk bayaran lebih dan mengatasi kadar tersebut) dideposit ke dalam suatu akaun penyenggaraan baru dan akaun kumpulan wang penjelas yang baru dibukakan atas nama Perbadanan Pengurusan, dan dengan itu untuk memuktamadkan senarai pemilik-pemilik petak yang berkelayakan untuk mengundi semasa EGM bagi pelantikan sebuah jawatankuasa Pengurusan atau EGM sedemikiannya disidang atau diadakan seperti yang dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah, dan selepas itu caj penyenggaraan bulanan dan sumbangan kumpulan wang penjelas pada kadar sedemikiannya dan bagi tempoh sedemikiannya ditentukan oleh Pentadbir;

bahawa Pentadbir itu hendaklah mengupah perkhidmatan sebuah firma perakaunan dan/atau sebuah syarikat juruaudit yang diluluskan atas pilihannya, untuk menyiasat dan mengaudit urusan sebenarnya dan kesemua akaun-akaun Perbadanan Pengurusan, termasuklah akaun penyenggaraan, akaun kumpulan wang penjelas, akaun tempat letak kereta, akaun bagi setiap dan tiap-tiap pemilik petak, akaun-akaun bank dan kewangan Perbadanan Pengurusan, dan pendapatan yang diperoleh daripada harta bersama termasuklah ruang tempat letak kereta dan kemudahan-kemudahan yang berkenaan dengannya, dan kesemua belanjaan, bayaran dan perbelanjaan; dan

bahawa Pentadbir itu hendaklah, dengan sokongan sebuah firma guaman pilihannya, mengambil alih dan mengawal kesemua transaksi atau perjanjian yang dimasuki atas nama dan bagi pihak Perbadanan Pengurusan dan bagi kesemua presiding yang masih belum selesai, sama ada diambil eleh atau terhadap Perbadanan Pengurusan di hadapan mana-mana Mahkamah atau Tribunal Pengurusan Strata atau pihak berkuasa lain yang sah, dan untuk mengambil tindakan yang sedemikiannya wajar atau memulakan presiding sedemikiannya perlu atas nama dan bagi pihak Perbadanan Pengurusan bagi menuntut kembali sebarang kerugian yang dialami Perbadanan Pengurusan akibat daripada sebarang transaksi, perjanjian, presiding dan sebarang reselusi kenennya dilaksanakan Perbadanan Pengurusan sehingga kini; (2.1) bahawa Pentadbir itu hendaklah bebas untuk memehon daripada Mahkamah bagi apa-apa arahan atau perintah atas terma dan syarat sedemikiannya yang Mahkamah beleh menentu, untuk memudahkan EGM tersebut disidang dan diadakan seperti yang diberikan kuasa oleh Pesuruhjaya Bangunan, atau EGM sedemikiannya untuk disidang dan diadakan seperti yang dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah atau sebarang perkara berkenaan dengan pentadbiran di sini;

bahawa Pentadbir itu hendaklah menyediakan dan mengemukakan suatu laporan kewangan berkenaan dengan urusan dan kewangan bagi Perbadanan Pengurusan untuk tempoh sejak pelantikan Pentadbir itu melalui Perintah Mahkamah sehingga pemberian pengurusan kepada jawatankuasa Pengurusan yang baru dipilih, dalam tempoh enam (6) bulan daripada Perintah Mahkamah tersebut atau dalam tempoh lanjutan yang sedemikiannya boleh diberikan oleh Mahkamah;

bahawa Mesyuarat Agung Luar Biasa ('EGM') untuk disidang dan diadakan seperti yang diberikan kuasa oleh Pesuruhjaya Bangunan itu ditangguhkan sementara menunggu penyempurnaan laporan Pentadbir berkenaan dengan urusan dan kewangan bagi Perbadanan Pengurusan untuk memudahkan EGM tersebut disidang dan diadakan seperti yang diberikan kuasa oleh Pesuruhjaya Bangunan, atau EGM sedemikiannya untuk disidang dan diadakan seperti yang diberikan kuasa oleh Mahkamah; dan

bahawa yuran dan perbelanjaan Peguamcara berkenaan dengan Saman Pemula di sini serta kesemua permohonan yang berkenaan dengannya dan yuran Pentadbir yang dinamakan di atas serta perbelanjaan yang ditanggung dalam perjalanan pentadbiran hendaklah dibayar oleh Perbadanan Pengurusan dan hendaklah boleh dituntut balik sebagai suatu hutang yang terhutang daripada semua pemilik-pemilik petak di Bay Avenue. II. bahawa Tetuan Chan, De Vries & Co tidak mempunyai locus standi atau kuasa untuk mewakili Defendan Kedua, dan bahawa kesemua kertas-kertas kausa, Afidavit-afidavit dan Notis-notis Permohonan (Lampiran 9 dan Lampiran 42) yang difailkan oleh Tetuan Chan, De Vries & Co adalah dengan ini dipadamkan; dan III. bahawa Chew Beng Hoon (No. K/P: 710124-07-5212), Liw Poh Choo (No. K/P: 730501-02-5412) dan Teng Bee Kim (No. K/P: 800612-05-5420) sebagai orang yang memberikan arahan-arahan kepada Tetuan Chan, De Vries & Co dalam Saman Pemula di sini hendaklah membayar kos sebanyak RM9,000.00 secara bersesama dan/atau berasingan kepada Plaintif-plaintif, tertakluk kepada yuran alokatur [23] Generally, the Order dated 12.11.2025 has allowed the appointment of Teoh Oo Seng as the Administrator of Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue under Section 76 of the Strata Management Act 2013. [24] Therefore, this Court finds that as Administrator for Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue, the Administrator shall assume control and possession of the car park account, and take over the maintenance and management of the common property, including the car parking bays and the facilities incidental thereto. This was also the basis of Enclosure 58. [25] Currently, ETV and/or their servants or agents are in possession of the common property at Bay Avenue, in particular, the car parking bays. [26] This can be seen in the affidavit in support of Enclosure 58 at Enclosure 60, affirmed by Teoh Oo Seng, the Administrator. [27] However, despite the Order, ETV has still failed to comply. Based on this alone, this Court has allowed the leave application in Enclosure

On this, ETV has also filed an appeal against this Court's decision to allow Enclosure 58 for leave to issue the writ of possession. [28] Further, this Court observed that, in addition to the Order, it was also ordered that Messrs Chan, De Vries & Co have no locus standi or authority to represent the 2nd Defendant (Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue), and that all cause papers, Affidavits and the Notices of Application (Enclosure 9 and Enclosure 42) filed by Messrs Chan, De Vries & Co are expunged. [29] Next, in regard to Enclosure 63, the proposed intervener has to show by way of an affidavit, the existence of a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter of the Originating Summons, which, in the opinion of the court, would be just and convenient to determine between the parties to the cause or matter. Thus, the court will decide whether to exercise its discretion to allow or deny leave to intervene based on this affidavit evidence. [30] Most importantly, an application to intervene must be made as soon as possible, before the matter becomes final. In Hong Leong Bank Bhd v. Staghorn Sdn Bhd & Other Appeals [2007] 3 MLRA 150, the Federal Court held- “[43] Considering all these authorities, my conclusion is that an application to intervene under O 15 r 6(2) of the RHC 1980 must be before judgment. To set aside an order or judgment, there must be a provision in the Rules that can be relied on for the purpose.”. [31] For convenience, the Chronology of Events is as follows-Date Event 12.11.2025 Order of the Court for the appointment of Teoh Oo Seng as Administrator for Perbadanan Pengurusan Bay Avenue pursuant to section 76 of the Strata

Management Act 2013 and for Orders consequential thereupon (Order dated 12.11.2025)

11.2025 Order dated 12.11.2025 drawn up and perfected (Encl. 54)

1.12.2025 ETV received a copy of the Order of the Court dated 12.11.2025 6.1.2026 Application under Encl. 63 filed 12.1.2026 Application under Encl. 63 served on Plaintiff and 1st Defendant respectively [32] For the record, Messrs Chan, De Vries & Co is now acting for ETV as the proposed intervenor in Enclosure 63. As such, ETV cannot now claim that it had only recently known about the Order of the Court dated 12.11.2025. It was clear that its solicitors, Messrs Chan, De Vries & Co, were previously representing the 2nd Defendant in this Originating Summons. Therefore, there could be no merit in ETV's claim that it has no knowledge of the Plaintiffs' Originating Summons herein and the Order of the Court dated 12.11.2025. [33] Further, it is trite law that the solicitors' knowledge can be imputed on the client, as submitted by the Plaintiffs, citing the cases of Foo Ah Kow & Anor v Yeap Poh Lum & Ors [2016] 6 CLJ 686, Court of Appeal and Tradium Sdn Bhd v Zain Azahari Zainal Abidin & Anor [1995] 1 MLJ 668, Court of Appeal. [34] Additionally, in Staghorn (supra), the Federal Court held- “[59] Secondly, an application for leave to intervene in order to set aside an order for sale by a party not already a party to the proceedings must be made under O 15 r 6 of the RHC 1980. The application may be made "at any stage of the proceedings" meaning before judgment, otherwise the proceedings have concluded and there is no longer a proceeding in existence for the party to intervene in. The judge has also become functus officio. Even then, the application must be made promptly. Order 15 r 6 of the RHC 1980 applies to all civil proceedings whether commenced by a writ, motion or summons etc.:. (Emphasis Added) [35] Thus, this Court is of the view that there is no longer a proceeding in existence for the applicant to intervene as Enclosure 63 was filed after the Originating Summons herein had already been determined with finality by the High Court upon the Order dated 12.11.2025. Furthermore, this Court is also functus officio. Therefore, based on the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court is bound by the Federal Court case of Staghorn (supra). [36] This Court is also inclined with the submissions of the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant, that ETV has no locus standi to intervene, given that it is not a parcel proprietor at Bay Avenue nor would have any right or interest to do so. Further, the purported Lease Agreement dated 2.4.2025 between the Management Corporation and ETV was entered into without the consent of the State authority nor the approval of the parcel proprietors at Bay Avenue. The fact remains that the local authority has not issued ETV a license to operate the car parking bays. CONCLUSION [37] As such, having considered the totality of the circumstances, the parties' submissions, and the applicable principles, this Court has allowed Enclosure 58 and dismissed Enclosure 63, accordingly. DATED: 8 JUNE 2026 -SGD- (SUZANA BINTI MUHAMAD SAID) Judge High Court 3 Georgetown, Pulau Pinang COUNSELS For the Plaintiffs & Administrator: M. Thayalan (Chong Jun Min bersamanya) Messrs. J A Yeoh For the 1st Defendant: Christina Siew Chee Wa Messrs. Lim Kean Siew & Co For the 2nd Defendant: Chan Szu Fu (Farhana Binti Mohamed Riaz bersamanya) Messrs. Chan, De Vries & Co. For the Proposed Intervener: Chan Szu Fu (Farhana Binti Mohamed Riaz bersamanya) Messrs. Chan, De Vries & Co.