1. ) Master yang v Perbadanan Pengurusan Monet Springtime (WA-24NCvC-5168-12/2024)

MASTER YANG (NRIC No: 940613-14-5799)

YAHOO YANG (NRIC No: 000812-10-1975) ... PLAINTIFFS AND PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN MONET SPRINGTIME ... DEFENDANT

This is an originating summons brought by the plaintiffs, Master Yang and Yahoo Yang, against the defendant, Perbadanan Pengurusan Monet Springtime, arising from a prolonged and acrimonious dispute concerning renovation works carried out, and intended to be carried out, at three landed stratified properties known as Units B16, B18 and B20, Jalan Sunsuria 3B/1, Monet Springtime, Bandar Sunsuria, Sepang, Selangor ("the said units").

The plaintiffs seek, inter alia, declaratory orders that the defendant acted unlawfully and without justification in issuing and maintaining stop work orders against them, as well as injunctive relief to restrain the defendant from further obstructing the continuation and completion of the renovation works at the said units.

The defendant resists the application in its entirety, contending that it was fully justified, both in law and on the facts, to intervene and prevent the renovation works. The defendant further advances a counterclaim premised on alleged breaches of the Strata Management Act 2013 ("the SMA 2013"), the applicable by-laws, and renovation guidelines, and seeks dismissal of the originating summons with costs.

At the heart of this dispute lie two interrelated questions. First, whether the defendant was legally justified in preventing the plaintiffs from carrying out renovation works at the said units. Secondly, whether the defendant may properly rely on correspondence or report from Majlis Perbandaran Sepang ("MPS") as evidence that the plaintiffs had breached the renovation permit or approved building plans, sufficiently to justify the impugned intervention.

The factual matrix is extensive and, in material respects, contested. It is therefore necessary to set out the chronology in some detail, as the sequence of events bears directly upon the issues the Court is required to determine and upon the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct at each material juncture.

The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of Units B16, B18 and B20 within Monet Springtime, a landed stratified residential development. It is not disputed that, from the outset, the plaintiffs intended to undertake renovation works to the said units prior to occupation.

Shortly after the delivery of vacant possession, and while the development remained under developer management pursuant to sections 46 and 48 of the SMA 2013, the plaintiffs submitted a renovation application in respect of Unit B16 on or about 23 December 2021. The application set out the nature and scope of the proposed works and was approved by the management office operating under the developer, Sunsuria City Sdn Bhd.

Subsequently, on or about 8 March 2023, the plaintiffs submitted renovation applications in respect of Unit B18 and B20. These applications similarly described the proposed renovation works and were approved by the management office. There is no dispute that, at this stage, no objection was raised by the management in respect of the scope or nature of the renovations.

On 18 July 2023, the plaintiffs submitted further renovation-related documentation, including architectural drawings and engineering drawings, in respect of all three units. These drawings contemplated, among other things, internal alterations and the incorporation of attic space. The plaintiffs' case is that such works were consistent with the original design concept of the development and comparable to renovations undertaken by other proprietors within Monet Springtime. The defendant, while disputing this characterization, does not seriously contest that similar attic or internal works exist elsewhere within the development.

It is common ground that on 3 August 2023, MPS issued renovation permits approving the works in accordance with the submitted drawings. Significantly, there is no evidence before this Court that MPS issued any summons, enforcement notice, compound or stop work order against the plaintiffs for non-compliance with the approved plans.

Renovation works at the plaintiffs' units commenced thereafter. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs paid the requisite renovation deposits, including additional sums categorised as deposits for "major works", and that official receipts were issued by the management. These payments were accepted without reservation.

The defendant alleges that on 7 March 2024, a notice of noncompliance with renovation guidelines and by-laws was issued to the plaintiffs, asserting, among other things, encroachment onto common property and lack of uniformity of the external facade. The plaintiffs deny ever receiving such notice and put the defendant to strict proof of service. No contemporaneous acknowledgment of receipt or proof of effective service was produced.

On 26 March 2024, the defendant issued a stop work order, halting all renovation works at the plaintiffs' units. The stop work order was framed broadly and extended even to interior works.

The dispute was subsequently referred to the Strata Management Tribunal. On 30 July 2024, the Tribunal delivered its award. The Tribunal revoked the stop work order issued on 26 March 2024. The Tribunal nevertheless included a proviso that its orders were made without prejudice to the parties' respective obligations to comply with the by-laws and applicable laws. The material portion of the award reads as follows: "Tribunal berpendapat bahawa:

notis henti kerja bertarikh 26.3.2024 telah dikeluarkan oleh Penentang untuk berhentikan kerja pengubahsuaian yang dijalankan di petak-petak Pihak Yang Menuntut yang dikenali sebagai B16, B18, B20, Jalan Sunsuria 3B/1, Monet Springtime, Bandar Sunsuria, 43900 Sepang, Selangor ('petak PYM') atas dakwaan dinding dibina oleh Pihak Yang Menuntut di belakang petak Pihak Yang Menuntut telah mencerobohi bahagian harta bersama;

Penentang juga mendakwa Pihak Yang Menuntut telah menyebabkan perubahan dibuat pada dinding di hadapan petak Pihak Yang Menuntut yang mengubah rupa mukaan bangunan; dan

kedua-dua dakwaan adalah dipertikaikan oleh Pihak Yang Menuntut Tribunal seterusnya memerintahkan bahawa:

notis henti kerja tersebut ditamatkan dengan serta-merta,

Penentang tidak dibenarkan untuk berhentikan kerja pengubahsuaian yang dijalankan oleh Pihak Yang Menuntut di petak Pihak Yang Menuntut atas dakwaan yang tersebut diatas;

perintah-perintah diatas adalah tanpa menjejaskan tanggungjawab kedua-dua pihak untuk mematuhi undang-undang kecil Penentang dan undang-undang lain dan tanpa menjejaskan kewajipan dan kuasa Penentang untuk menguatkuasakan undang-undang kecil Penentang termasuk undang-undang kecil Penentang berkenaan kerja pengubahsuaian, pencerobohan dan perubahan mukaan bangunan;..." [Emphasis is mine]

On or about 2 August 2024, MPS renewed the plaintiffs' renovation permits.

Notwithstanding the Tribunal's revocation of the stop work order and the renewal of the renovation permits by MPS, the defendant continued to refuse permission for the plaintiffs to resume renovation works. In doing so, the defendant relied on various grounds, including correspondence from MPS which it contended suggested non-compliance with approved plans.

The plaintiffs submit that the defendant's action were unlawful, unreasonable, and unsupported by evidence.

They contend, first, that the stop work orders issued on 26 March 2024 was rendered invalid and of no legal effect upon its revocation by the Strata Management Tribunal, whose award is binding unless set aside in accordance with law.

Secondly, the plaintiffs contend that there was no breach of any renovation permit or approved plan. They emphasize that MPS, as the relevant local authority, never issued any enforcement notice, summons, or directive requiring cessation or rectification of works.

Thirdly, the plaintiffs argue that the defendant's reliance on MPS correspondence is misconceived, as the letter and the accompanying report merely recorded visual observations and did not assert that the renovation works contravened approved plans or by-laws.

Fourthly, the plaintiffs contend that the defendant's insistence on additional requirements, including further certifications and assurances not prescribed by the by-laws, was arbitrary and amounted to an abuse of management power.

Finally, the plaintiffs submit that they have been wrongfully deprived of the use and enjoyment of their properties for a prolonged period and are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief to bring this prolonged impasse to an end.

The defendant maintains that it was fully justified in preventing the renovation works.

It contends that the plaintiffs' renovations were extensive in nature, posed potential safety risks, and infringed by-laws relating to the protection of common property and uniformity of facade.

The defendant further submits that the Tribunal award did not absolve the plaintiffs from compliance with the by-laws and expressly preserved the defendant's enforcement powers.

Reliance is placed on correspondence from MPS, which the defendant argues indicated non-compliance with approved plans and justified continued intervention notwithstanding the absence of formal enforcement action by MPS.

The defendant also invokes equitable principles, contending that the plaintiffs do not come to Court with clean hands and that declaratory and injunctive relief should therefore be refused.

Having considered the pleadings, affidavits and submissions, the following issues arise for determination:

Whether the defendant was justified in law and on the facts in preventing the plaintiffs from carrying out renovation works at the said units;

(ii) Whether the defendant may properly rely on the MPS correspondence or report as evidence of breach of renovation permits or approved plans; and

(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought. Court's Analysis and Findings

I begin with the applicable legal framework. There is no dispute that a management body is vested with powers under the SMA 2013 and the relevant by-laws to regulate renovation and building works within a strata development. Those powers, however, are not at large. They must be exercised strictly within the limits prescribed by statute and the by-laws, and in a manner consistent with established principles of administrative reasonableness, proportionality, and procedural fairness. Regulatory authority does not confer an unfettered discretion to restrain works. Any restraint must be justified by reference to demonstrable facts and an identifiable legal basis.

Against that framework, the defendant advanced two principal concerns arising from the plaintiffs' renovation application forms and the accompanying engineering drawings, which were said to pose potential safety risks and infringed by-laws protecting the common property. On the evidence before this Court, those concerns cannot be sustained as live or continuing issues. The plaintiffs had, by 18 July 2023, furnished the requisite architectural and engineering drawings and had paid the additional deposit of RM4,000 per unit required for major renovation works. The defendant's own contemporaneous records demonstrate that any earlier procedural deficiencies had been regularised. Those matters cannot now be revived as a basis for ongoing restraint.

I turn next to the effect of the Tribunal award. The defendant is correct to observe that the Tribunal expressly preserved the parties' continuing obligations to comply with applicable by-laws and governing laws. That preservation, however, is not synonymous with proof of breach. Of central importance is the Tribunal's express revocation of the stop work order dated 26 March 2024. The clear and operative effect of the award was to lift the restraint that had previously been imposed.

The defendant's continued reliance on the Tribunal's "without prejudice" proviso in the award, absent proof of a fresh and cogent evidence of breach, runs counter to the revocation order. The preservation clause cannot be elevated into a licence to perpetuate restraint by administrative means. Enforcement powers are not to be exercised preemptively or as a matter of institutional caution. They must be grounded in fact, not conjecture. A management body cannot, as a matter of principle, invoke the Tribunal's preservation clause while disregarding the plain and operative effect of an express orders revoking a stop work notice.

The defendant further contends that its position is substantially supported by correspondence or a report from MPS. I have examined the contents of those documents relied upon by the defendant with care. Properly construed, they amount to no more than the recording of observations made during a site visit. They do not state, whether expressly or by necessary implication, that the plaintiffs' renovation works breached the approved plans or permits. Still less do they direct cessation of works or the carrying out of rectification.

Of particular significance is the fact that no enforcement notice, summons, or stop work order was ever issued by MPS. The absence of such action is telling. While a management body is not required, in every case, to await formal enforcement action before acting, it cannot elevate informal observations into definitive proof of breach where the competent authority itself has neither found nor declared non-compliance.

To permit reliance on such correspondence or report as conclusive evidence of breach would be to allow management bodies to act on conjecture rather than established fact. That would be inconsistent with both the statutory scheme and offend basic principles of fairness and rational decision-making.

The evidential record discloses photographs of similar modifications undertaken by other residents within the development, including units associated with members of the defendant's management committee. While uniformity of enforcement is not, in itself, an absolute requirement, such evidence reinforces the conclusion that the defendant's approach to the plaintiffs' renovations was selective and inconsistent. That inconsistency materially undermines the legitimacy of the defendant's regulatory action and lends weight to the plaintiffs' complaint of arbitrariness.

Having regard to the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs obtained the requisite renovation permits, submitted the necessary architectural and engineering drawings, and complied with the defendant's stipulated requirements as to documentation and deposits. The defendant's subsequent insistence on additional requirements, which were not shown to be founded upon any specific provision of the by-laws, was therefore unjustified. In any event, such insistence sits uneasily with the Tribunal's express revocation of the stop work order and cannot be defended as a proper exercise of residual enforcement power.

I turn briefly to the equitable objections raised by the defendant. The authorities relied upon concern cases involving deliberate suppression, dishonesty, or material non-disclosure. No such conduct has been established on the facts before me. On the contrary, the plaintiffs acted openly, submitted their plans to both the management and the local authority, and proceeded on the basis of approval lawfully obtained. There is accordingly no equitable basis upon which discretionary relief should be refused.

Weighing the totality of the evidence, I conclude that the defendant has failed to justify its continued prevention of the renovation works. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, have demonstrated that they acted transparently and in reliance on approvals lawfully obtained. I also note that the evidential foundation of the defendant's counterclaim is weak. The quotations relied upon were prepared long after the alleged incidents, and the incidents involving the plaintiffs' mother appear, on the evidence, to be closely connected to the deactivation of access card. That deactivation itself raises serious questions, particularly in circumstances where that the plaintiffs were not in default of service charge payments at the material time.

It follows from these findings that the central premises upon which the defendant sought to justify its conduct cannot be sustained. The continued restraint on the plaintiffs' renovation works was neither grounded in a subsisting breach of the by-laws nor supported by any operative regulatory directive. What remained, at the material time, was a valid set of approvals and a Tribunal award that had expressly lifted the stop work order.

It is hereby declared that the defendant was not justified in preventing the plaintiffs from carrying out renovation works at Units B16, B18 and B20.

An injunction is granted restraining the defendant, whether by itself or through its agents, from obstructing or preventing the plaintiffs from continuing and completing the renovation works in accordance with the approved plans and permits.

The defendant's counterclaim is dismissed in its entirety.

Costs of RM15,000 are awarded to the plaintiffs, subject to allocatur. Dated the $ 1 0^{th} $ day of March 2026 ...SGN... MOH KOK WAI JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE HIGH COURT HIGH COURT (CIVIL DIVISION NCvC14) HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY OF MALAYSIA Counsel for the Plaintiffs Wai Chong Khuan and Derek Chin Tze Qi Messrs Low & Partners Counsel for the Defendant : Dheebak Kumaran and Rasvinder Kaur Sodhi Messrs Rasvin Sodhi & Co