Rozzana Chung Binti Abdullah v United Highlands Sdn Bhd (C-02(NCvC)(W)-879-06/2023)

ROZZANA CHUNG BINTI ABDULLAH

GAN SIAN SOON

CHUNG NYAT DAU

LOO AI MUI (NO. K/P: 541121-01-5084) Wakil Diri Kepada Harta Pusaka Defenden Ke-4, Si Mati CHARLES PHILOMEN A/L V. DAVID

CHONG MUN CHENG

LEE EK WEE

NG PIK YEN (NO. K/P: 600526-07-5218) … APPELLANTS 22/05/2026 10:25:32 C-02(NCvC)(W)-879-06/2023 Kand. 137 AND UNITED HIGHLANDS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 80802D) … RESPONDENT [In the Matter of High Court in Kuantan at Pahang Suit No. CA-22NCvC-66-12/2017] UNITED HIGHLANDS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 80802D) … PLAINTIFF

ROZZANA CHUNG BINTI ABDULLAH

GAN SIAN SOON

CHUNG NYAT DAU

LOO AI MUI (NO. K/P: 541121-01-5084) Wakil Diri Kepada Harta Pusaka Defenden Ke-4, Si Mati CHARLES PHILOMEN A/L V. DAVID

CHONG MUN CHENG

LEE EK WEE

NG PIK YEN (NO. K/P: 600526-07-5218) … DEFENDANT CORAM: AZIZUL AZMI BIN ADNAN, JCA ALWI BIN HJ. ABDUL WAHAB, JCA LIM HOCK LENG, JCA JUDGMENT [1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Kuantan given on 25.5.2023, wherein the learned High Court Judge allowed the Plaintiff/respondent’s claim and entered judgment against the Defendants /appellants among others:

Satu deklarasi bahawa tiada apa-apa mesyuarat am atau mesyuarat (-mesyuarat) jawatankuasa boleh diadakan dan/atau diteruskan atas inisiasi (initiation) dan/atau permohonan rasmi (requisition) daripada setiap dan semua Defendan-Defendan;

Satu deklarasi bahawa setiap dan semua Defendan-Defendan telah melakukan satu kesalahan tort penipuan (tort of deceit) terhadap Badan Pengurusan Bersama Selesa Hillhomes ("JMB'), Plaintif dan/atau penduduk-penduduk Selesa Hillhomes;

Satu perintah bahawa setiap dan semua Defendan-Defendan mematuhi Awad bertarlkh 27.09.2017 darlpada Tribunal Pengurusan Strata Tuntutan No. TPSIC-2137- 8/2017 ("Awad tersebut') secara serta merta dalam masa 14 hari dari Penghakiman in dengan menyerah, mengundurkan diri dan/atau dilarang daripada mengakui diri atau memberikan representasi bahawa mereka seolah-olahnya adalah ahll-ahli Jawatankuasa Pengurusan Bersama ("JPB') kepada JMB tersebut;

Satu injunksi diberikan terhadap Defendan-Defendan supaya Defendan-Defendan, sama ada melalui mereka diri sendiri atau melalui ejen-ejen, dilarang daripada menggunakan dan menggunakan untuk kepentingan mereka (utilizing) akaun-akaun lain di bawah nama JMB termasuk tetapi tidak terhad kepada menandatangani apa-apa instrumen atau cek(-cek) bagi pihak JMB, kalau tidak Defendan-Defendan untuk berlanggungjawab secara peribadi atas setiap penggunaan yang tidak dikuasakan dan tidak sah tersebut dan secara peribadinya harus bertanggungjawab, membayar dan/atau mempampas kehilangan dan kerosakan yang dikenakan akibat daripada penggunaan tersebut;

Setiap Defendan-Defendan bertanggungjawab atas apa-apa kehilangan dan kerosakan yang dikenakan atas Plaintif dan/atau JMB akibat daripada keengganan mereka untuk mematuhi Awad tersebut dan/atau kesan Awad tersebut;

Setiap Defendan-Defendan bertanggungjawab atas apa-apa kehllangan dan kerosakan yang dikenakan atas Plaintif dan/atau JMB akibat daripada misrepresentasi secara sudi dan/atau penipuan;

Gantirugi am untuk ditaksirkan terhadap, dan dibayar oleh setiap Defendan-Defendan kepada Plaintif;

Gantirugi teladan disebabkan oleh tort penipuan sebanyak RM100,000.00 dibayar oleh Defendan-Defendan kepada Plaintif; dan

Kos sebanyak RM100,000.00 dibayar oleh Defendan-Defendan kepada Plaintif tertakluk kepada fi alokatur. Background Facts [2] For the purposes of our decision, the parties shall be referred to as Plaintiff and Defendants as they were named in the High Court (“HC”). The facts of the case are largely not in dispute which are set out below. [3] The Plaintiff (United Highlands Sdn Bhd) is the developer of a hilltop development known as “Selesa Hillhomes” at Bukit Tinggi, 28750 Bentong, Pahang Darul Makmur, and also is the registered owner to 47 units of apartments in Selesa Hillhomes as of to-date. [4] By virtue of the Strata Management Act 2013 (“Act 757”), the Plaintiff, being the developer, is a mandatory and statutory member of a Joint Management Body of Selesa Hillhomes (“the JMB”) until a Management Corporation is formed. [5] Such Management Corporation has not been formed yet as of to-date. The JMB in turn is managed by a committee by the name of the Joint Management Committee or “JMC” in short. [6] The 1st Defendant (Rozzana Chung Binti Abdullah) and the 2nd Defendant (Gan Sian Soon @ Albert Gan) were respectively the Chairman and the Secretary to the JMC from 9.9.2015 to 8.9.2017

Adalah dimaklumkan bahawa pengiraan tempoh pemegangan jawatan dalam JMB/JMC bermula dari Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan selepas Akta 757 dikuatkuasakan.

Justeru itu,tempoh pemegangan jawatan akan tamat pada Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan yang berikutnya diadakan. Sekian dimaklumkan, terima kasih. “Berkhidmat Untuk Negara” Saya yang menurut perintah, t.t. (JULIANA BINTI ABDULLAH) Ketua Bahagian Bahagian Pesuruhjaya Bangunan b/p Pesuruhjaya Bangunan Majlis Perbandaran Bentong" (“COB’s first letter”) [12] On 5.9.2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim before the Strata Management Tribunal to challenge the above COB’s letter and to seek, among other things, the following orders: “(1) Suatu tuntutan bagi suatu perintah untuk mengubah atau membatalkan keputusan Pesuruhjaya yang dalam surat Bil (83) dlm MPB/COB/BT/01/08 Jld 10 bertarikh 07 Julai 2017 dimana dinyatakan bahawa “tempoh pemegangan jawatan akan tamat pada Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan yang berikutnya diadakan”. [13] On 27.9.2017, the President of the Tribunal accepted the Plaintiff’s arguments, and granted an award in favour of the Plaintiff as follows:- “Surat Bil (83) dalam MPB/COB/BT/01/08 Jld 10 bertarikh 7.7.2017 yang dikeluarkan oleh Penentang di mana menyatakan bahawa “tempoh pemegangan jawatan akan tamat pada Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan yang berikutnya diadakan” adalah dibatalkan tanpa kos dan Tuntutan Balas oleh Pihak Penentang juga dibatalkan tanpa kos” (“2137 Tribunal Award”) [14] Despite the said Award, the COB by a letter dated 9.10.2017 ordered the then JMB to convene a meeting to elect new office bearers to hold office until the next AGM, instead of announcing that the 1st to the 7th Defendants were no longer validly appointed members of the JMC. The letter contains the following: “Dengan segala hormatnya, saya diarah merujuk kepada perkara diatas.

Dengan ini Pesuruhajaya Bangunan mengarahkan JMB Selesa Hillhomes untuk mengambil Tindakan berikut:

2.1 Anggota Jawatankuasa yang tinggal hendaklah melantik pengerusi, setiausaha dan bendahari yang Baharu di kalangan mereka, untuk memegang jawatan sebagai pengerusi, setiausaha dan bendahari sehingga mesyuarat agung yang berikutnya diadakan. Ini Adalah kerana pengerusi, setiausaha dan bendahari yang sedia ada sekarang telah memegang jawatan lebih dari dua tahun berturut-turut…” (“COB’s second letter”) [15] Following the COB’s second letter, the 1st to 7th Defendants convened the 101st JMC Meeting on 12.10.2017 and new office bearers were accordingly appointed. [16] The Plaintiff’s representative then met with the COB’s office again on 19.10.2017 to seek explanation behind the order to the JMB to convene the meeting. [17] By its subsequent letter dated 30.10.2017, the COB rescinded the earlier directive issued on 9.10.2017 requiring the JMB Selesa Hillhomes to convene a meeting for the election of new office bearers. Consequent upon this cancellation, the parties reverted to the post-Tribunal Award position, wherein the 1st to the 7th Defendants were not recognised as valid members of the JMB. The COB’s letter of 30.10.2017 provides, inter alia, as follows: “Puan, Pembatalan surat arahan bagi pelantikan Baharu jawatan pengerusi , setiausaha & bendahari di JMB Selesa Hillhomes, Saya selaku Pesuruhjaya Bangunan dengan ini membatalkan surat kami Bil (30) dlm MPB/COB/BT/08 Jld 11 betarikh 9.10.2017. Sekian dimaklumkan, terima kasih. “Berkhidmat Untuk Negara” Saya yang menurut perintah, t.t. (Dato’ Mohammad Shahid Bin Ismail, DIMP,AAP) Pesuruhjaya Bangunan, Majlis Perbandaharan Bentong (“COB’s third letter”). [18] On 6.12.2017, the Plaintiff filed another claim in the Strata Management Tribunal. This time, it named the Selesa Hillhomes JMB and the COB to seek an order to convene an AGM of the JMB and ancillary or consequential orders (“the 3573 Tribunal claim”). [19] However, the Plaintiff also commenced this action on 17.12.2017 in the High Court against the Defendants claiming that the Defendants were wrongly remaining in office in the JMC, and that the JMB was illegally constituted. The Plaintiff’s claims are as follows: a) to seek an injunction to restrain the Defendants from performing their duties as members of the JMC; b) an injunction to restrain the intended AGM; and c) an order to enforce the Award granted by the Tribunal and to further claim against the Defendants for holding their positions under the JMC during an invalid period. [20] On 30.12.2017, a 9th AGM was consequently held by the Defendants. [21] On 22.11.2019, the President of the Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against Selesa Hillhomes JMB and the COB (“the 3573 Tribunal Award”). Issues Before This Court [22] The Defendants/appellants have essentially raised 5 key issues which we shall address in turn. [23] The first issue is on the locus standi of the Plaintiff to commence this action against the Defendants. [24] The Defendants/appellants contend that the Plaintiff/respondents had no locus standi to commence or maintain this action as the Defendants owed no duty to the Plaintiff although the Plaintiff, as developer is also a member of the JMB. [25] The Defendants as the former office bearers and members of the JMC owed no duty to the Plaintiff personally but to the general body of proprietors in the JMB as a whole. [26] The Defendants further contend that the 2137 Tribunal Claim was filed by the Plaintiff solely against the COB and neither the Defendants /appellants nor the JMB were cited as a party in the Tribunal. [27] Thus, the learned HCJ erred in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s complete lack of locus standi and for the following reasons. [28] The order of the HC in declaring that no general meetings or JMC meetings of Selesa Hillhomes JMB may be initiated by the Defendants clearly affected the JMB which is a separate legal entity. The Defendants were elected to the JMC by the members of the JMB. As such, the Plaintiff was not authorised nor entitled to bring the suit in its own name. [29] The declaration that the Defendants committed tort of deceit against the JMB, the Plaintiff and the residents of Selesa Hillhomes was wrong when the JMB and the other parcel owners were never parties. The Plaintiff clearly had no authority to bring such a claim in its own name. [30] We are of the view that the fact that the duties of a member of the JMC is owed to the body of proprietors generally does not mean that an individual proprietor cannot commence an action against the JMB or the members of the JMC if statutory duties are breached. [31] Act 757 imposes statutory duties upon the JMB and its committee members, encompassing obligations to convene meetings, to maintain the common property, and to comply with prescribed financial and administrative requirements. Breach of these duties may give rise to liability, and proprietors, whether acting individually or collectively, possess the locus standi to challenge such breaches. [32] In other words, the right to commence an action can be a personal right held by the proprietors in their capacity as proprietors if their rights are directly affected. As such the common law derivative action procedure is inapplicable. [33] In Tetap Tiara Sdn Bhd v Pengurusan Perbadanan Jaya One & Ors [2024] 1 AMR 499, the Court of Appeal affirmed that proprietors possess locus standi to enforce compliance with statutory duties, including the obligation to convene meetings when requisitioned (see also Perbadanan Pengurusan 3 Two Square v 3 Two Square Sdn Bhd & Anor and Another Appeal [2019] CLJU 2281). Collectively, these authorities establish that while JMC members act for the benefit of proprietors generally, individual proprietors retain the right to sue for breaches of statutory duty, thereby ensuring accountability and adherence to the legislative framework. [34] The second issue pertains to the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the present matter. [35] The Defendants/Appellants also contend that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter because the issues in dispute were previously before the Strata Management Tribunal seeking remedies for the same alleged and perceived wrongdoing. [36] Section 106 (1) of Act 757 states as follows: “Exclusion of jurisdiction of court

Where a claim is filed with the Tribunal and the claim is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the issues in dispute in that claim, whether as shown in the initial claim or as emerging in the course of the hearing, shall not be the subject of proceedings between the same parties in any court unless-

the proceedings before the court were commenced before the claim was filed with the Tribunal; or

the claim before the Tribunal is withdrawn, abandoned or struck out. [37] Section 106 of Act 757 bars the filing of any new action in Court where the Tribunal has already heard the same subject matter, provided it falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and involves the same parties. In the present case, the claim before the Tribunal was filed well before the commencement of the suit. The Defendants/Appellants contend that the Plaintiff/Respondent’s action is barred by virtue of section 106 of Act 757. [38] We are of the view that the HC has jurisdiction to hear the present suit because the Defendants/appellants were not the parties in the 3573 Tribunal claim. We also note that the subject matter of the suit and the 3573 Tribunal claim are quite different in the sense that the earlier 3573 Tribunal claim seeks to convene an AGM of the JMB whilst the suit seeks to restrain the intended AGM although both were based on the same ground i.e. that the JMC was illegally constituted. [39] The third issue which bears a direct relation to the second issue i.e. the Defendants/Appellants’ contention that the 2137 Tribunal Award did not bind them, as neither they nor the JMB were parties to the proceedings. [40] The Court, having accepted jurisdiction notwithstanding section 106 of Act 757 on the basis that the Defendant/appellants were not parties to the earlier proceedings in the 3573 Tribunal claim, must equally hold that the 2137 Tribunal Award cannot bind them, for the very same reason: they were not parties to the 2137 Tribunal Award. Accordingly, the 2137 Tribunal Award does not operate to oust the Court’s jurisdiction in the present suit. [41] The fourth issue for determination is whether the retirement by operation of law of the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer of the JMC had the effect of automatically vacating the offices of the remaining committee members. [42] On the retirement of the office bearers of the JMC, i.e. the chairman, secretary or treasurer upon the expiry of the 2-year terms limit, we agree with the Defendants/appellants’ submission that the entire JMC does not become “illegal” or void (see the Court of Appeal’s case of Bonifac Lobo Robert Lobo v Dr Zubaidah binti Ibrahim & Ors (2018] 10 CLJ 470). [43] Section 2(5) of the Second Schedule to Act 757 provides: “There shall be a chairman, secretary and treasurer, all of whom shall be natural persons, to be elected by the management committee from among its member immediately after the conclusion of the general meeting but no chairman, secretary or treasurer shall hold office for more than two consecutive years”. [44] Although the Second Schedule to Act 757 stipulates that the chairman, secretary, and treasurer of the JMC may not hold office for more than two years, and this may be construed as requiring their offices to be automatically relinquished upon expiry of that tenure, the legislation contains no provision:

for their automatic retirement as members of the JMC; or

for the automatic retirement of other JMC members who are not the office bearers. [45] The final issue concerns the Plaintiff/respondent’s complaint premised on the tort of deceit. [46] We note that the actions of the Defendants/appellants that formed the basis of the Plaintiff/respondent’s complaint in tort of deceit were their failure to inform the proprietors at the 9th AGM held on 30.12.2017 that they were no longer entitled to continue holding office as committee members of the JMC. By such omission, the Defendants/Appellants misrepresented to those present at the 9th AGM as though they were validly appointed. [47] The Plaintiff/respondent relied on the following documents to establish that the Defendants/appellants were no longer members of the JMC:

the 2137 Tribunal Award dated 27.9.2017;

the COB’s third letter dated 30.10.2017; and,

the Court of Appeal’s order dated 21.11.2017 (Rekod Rayuan (Bahagian C - Jilid 2F) at p. 1078-1079). [48] According to the learned counsel for the Plaintiff/respondent, the Court of Appeal’s order dated 21.11.2017 concerned the issue of locus standi of the respondent (Selesa Hillhomes JMB) and it was submitted that the JMC had no locus to carry on the business of the JMB. Upon being referred to the Court of Appeal’s order dated 21.11.2017, we find that the order contains no determinative finding on the question of locus in relation to the JMC. In any event, the order of 21.11.2017 was never pleaded in the Plaintiff/respondent’s Amended Statement of Claim, and accordingly cannot be relied upon for the present purpose. [49] As regards the 2137 Tribunal Award dated 27.9.2017 and the COB’s third letter of 30.10.2017, neither document directed that all members of the JMC were required to resign from their positions. The 2137 Tribunal Award merely invalidated the COB’s first letter of 7.7.2017 without stating any further course of action for the JMC members. This is quite apart from the fact that the Defendants/appellants were not parties to the proceedings leading up to the 2137 Tribunal Award. [50] The COB’s third letter dated 30.10.2017 merely retracts the COB’s second letter of 9.10.2017 and again without stating that the remaining members of the JMC must also resign or otherwise relinquish their positions. [51] Thus, looking at the facts and viewed from the perspective of the JMC members, there was nothing in the evidence which indicates that the relevant authorities had required them to relinquish their positions as members of the JMC. In the absence of any such requirement, their participation and conduct at the AGM on 30.12.2017 cannot be characterised as deceitful. [52] We find that the Plaintiff/respondent’s contention of deceit was not made out either on the pleadings or on the evidence. The pleadings disclosed no particulars of deceit, and the evidence adduced fell short of establishing any misrepresentation or dishonest conduct on the part of the Defendants/appellants. In the circumstances, the allegation of deceit must fail, and the learned High Court Judge’s finding to the contrary cannot be sustained. Conclusion [53] For the reasons set out above, we find merit in the appeal. The learned High Court Judge’s conclusions were reached in disregard of material evidence, and in certain respects were contrary to the documentary records which renders the decision plainly wrong. [54] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the learned High Court Judge’s decision given on 25.5.2023 is set aside. [55] Costs of RM120,000.00 here and below to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants and such costs is subject to allocatur. Dated this: 20th January 2026 -sgd-ALWI BIN HJ. ABDUL WAHAB JUDGE COURT OF APPEAL Counsel: For the Appellants/Defendants: Mr. K Shanmuga (Mr. Jayadeva a/l T. Thirugnanam and Ms Jowyn Saw him) of Messrs. Radhakrishnan &