Attana Scotts Properties (Kl) Sdn Bhd v Kirana Management Corporation (WA-22NCvC-449-08/2020)

This case delves into a legal battle between a property developer and the management corporation of a condominium as the dispute lies in the ongoing disagreement over the maintenance and management of a mixed-development building comprising of two towers. 21/08/2025 18:38:03

The Plaintiff is a developer of a mixed development building held under Lot No. 1271, Seksyen 57, Geran 42678, Bandar Kuala Lumpur which comprises of The Ascotts KL (“Menara A”) and Kirana Condominium (“Menara B”) (collectively referred as “the Property”).

The Plaintiff owns 73,855 share units in both Menara A and Menara B whilst the other owners collectively own 23,619 share units in both Menara A and Menara B, this makes the Plaintiff a significant majority.

The Plaintiff is also the registered proprietors for 226 parcel units in Menara A and 1 unit located in Menara B.

Meanwhile, the Defendant is the management corporation (“MC”) of Kirana Condominium which was incorporated under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (“STA 1985”) registered on 06.01.2006.

After the Defendant held its first Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) on 05.12.2009, the Plaintiff handed over the maintenance and management of Menara B to the Defendant effectively on 01.02.2010.

Throughout the whole period from the Defendant’s incorporation up to date, the Plaintiff had been maintaining S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg and managing Menara A, whilst the Defendant had been maintaining Menara B.

The Plaintiff alleged that both parties proceeded with the arrangement and understanding (“the Mutual Agreement”) that the Plaintiff shall be responsible for managing Menara A whilst the Defendant shall be responsible for managing Menara B.

At all material times, it is a known fact that apart from two penthouse units which were sold to private individuals, the Plaintiff operates and manages a serviced apartment business for the parcel units owned by the Plaintiff in Menara A.

In May 2010, the Plaintiff surrendered a parcel unit together with several accessory parcels to be part of the common property that was vested in the Defendant, which included the pump room and Level 22 swimming pools at Menara B, however the Plaintiff continued maintaining the pump room and Level 22 swimming pools.

Upon the surrender of the Plaintiff’s parcel units in May 2010, the Property then comprised 294 parcel units with a total of 97,474 aggregate share units, divided into 228 parcel units comprising 76,103 share units in Menara A and 66 parcel units comprising of 21,371 share units in Menara B.

At the same time, the Plaintiff also collected service charges/maintenance charges at the rate of RM0.50/per sq. ft and sinking fund contributions at the rate of RM0.10/per sq. ft from 2 penthouse parcel owner units in Menara A.

Previously in 2003, 2 plots of penthouse units in Menara A (M1A/35/294 & M1A/35/295) were sold by the Plaintiff to 2 individual buyers after which the Plaintiff began collecting service charges (equivalent to maintenance charges) and sinking fund contributions from the 2 owners of the penthouse units.

The total collection from the owner of penthouse M1A/35/294 with an area of 5,682 sq. ft for the period from January 2010 until May 2018 is RM3,409.20, meanwhile, the monthly collection from the owner of penthouse M1A/35/295 with an area of 4,230 sq. ft for the period from January 2010 until May 2018 is RM2,538.00 making a total collection of RM344,329.20 for Penthouse No.3301 and RM256,338.00 for penthouse No.3302, making a total of RM600,667.20.

However, the penthouse owners stopped paying to the Plaintiff after May 2018 pending determination of the issues between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this suit.

The Plaintiff had maintained and managed the common property in Menara A for the period from 2010 to 2019 incurring a total of RM41,963,826.94 by utilising the service S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg charges/maintenance charges amounting to RM36,279,373.83 and RM5,684,453.11 from the sinking fund contributions.

However, the Defendant, via a letter dated 13.5.2019, took the position that there was no record of any written agreement or anything binding which permits the exclusion of Plaintiff from paying the maintenance charges and sinking fund and hence the Defendant requested the information of accounts and expenses in relation to the management and maintenance of the common areas in Menara A and/or which are under the control of the Plaintiff.

The Defendant in the same letter mentioned that the Defendant is entitled to collect any unpaid and uncollected charges due from the Plaintiff and demanded the Plaintiff to pay the outstanding monthly maintenance charges and the sinking fund contributions for the period from the Defendant was established in 2006 until 2009.

Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff filed this suit for, amongst others: “a) A declaration that soon as the Plaintiff handed over the maintenance and management of Menara B to the Defendant, there was a Mutual Agreement that the Plaintiff shall be responsible for managing Menara A while the Defendant shall be responsible for managing Menara B; S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg b) A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation from the Defendant for the total cost of maintenance and management of Menara A, which includes common property totalling RM41,963,826.94 for the period from January 2010 to December 2019; c) A declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the Defendant for the total cost of maintenance and management of Menara A is included as common property for the period from January 2020 till the date of the writ, as determined by the court; d) The Defendant is ordered to accept and take into account the maintenance and management costs of the Plaintiff amounting to RM41,963,826.94 by deducting the total charges and contributions of the deposit money incurred and that should have been paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for the period from January 2010 to December 2019; e) In all material times, the Plaintiff did not have any outstanding maintenance fee to the Defendant; and f) A declaration that the Plaintiff has the right to attend and participate in the Defendant’s AGM for the year 2020.”. The Plaintiff’s Case 20. The Plaintiff's arguments primarily focus on the existence of a Mutual Agreement, which mentioned amongst others: S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg a) The Plaintiff was responsible for managing Menara A, while the Defendant was responsible for managing Menara B; b) After the Defendant's first AGM on 05.12.2009, the Plaintiff handed over the maintenance and management of Menara B to the Defendant, effective on 01.02.2010; c) Despite handing over Menara B, the Plaintiff continued to maintain and manage Menara A, including the common property, based on the Mutual Agreement; and d) In May 2010, the Plaintiff surrendered a parcel unit and several accessory parcels to the Defendant, including the pump room and Level 22 swimming pools at Menara B. However, the Plaintiff continued maintaining the pump room and swimming pools.

Despite the Defendant’s claim for outstanding maintenance charges are prescribed under the law, the Plaintiff reiterates that the Defendant had not incurred any expenses for the maintenance of such common property in Menara A since 2010 as to date and thus the Defendant’s claim ought to be dismissed.

Over time, the Plaintiff has incurred a huge sum of expenses for the maintenance of Menara A all this while and the Plaintiff had even incurred further costs in relation to legal services and professional services from the land surveyor and appointed S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg expert. Clearly, the Defendant being the MC had failed to take steps even after the discovery in 2019 to resolve the matter and this has taken a toll on both parties.

The Plaintiff also maintains that they are entitled to propose resolutions and vote in the Defendant's AGM despite being considered a defaulter. They argue that the Defendant's actions in preventing them from participating in the AGM are unlawful and that the Defendant should not be able to use the AGM to circumvent the legal process for settling the dispute. The Defence 24. The Defendant in its submissions demonstrated that:

The Plaintiff’s claim was plainly wrong, unlawful, and ultra vires;

The Plaintiff, who possessed the requisite expertise and knowledge as the developer, exploited the inexperienced laity members of the MC and retained control of Menara A at the relevant time, rather than transferring it to the Defendant as the MC to maintain and administer;

The Plaintiff lacked a legal basis or any legal rights to collect or incur funds for the purported maintenance and management of Menara A without the proper and lawful approval of the MC, as outlined in the SMA 2013. S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg Additionally, the Plaintiff lacks a legal basis to apply any set-off against the sums due and owing to the

The Defendant did not owe the Plaintiff any sum of monies;

The Plaintiff had the duty and obligation to pay maintenance and sinking fund to the Defendant upon the incorporation of the Defendant and there was no allowance or exemption in law to allow the Plaintiff to avoid its obligations and avoid paying as proprietor of the units in Menara A; and

The Plaintiff's expenses in this suit were unauthorised under the SMA 2013. These expenses mostly consisted of the cost and expenses associated with managing the business operations of a serviced residence business owned by the Plaintiff and hence they cannot be claimed against the Defendant or offset against the maintenance and sinking fund charges that are due from the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the Defendant filed a counter claim against the Plaintiff for: a) A declaration that the Plaintiff has violated the provisions of the SMA 2013 when: S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg i) the Plaintiff failed to surrender full control of Menara A to the Defendant in 2010, ii) the Plaintiff had improperly collected maintenance and sinking fund charges from the owners of penthouse units in Menara A without the proper authorization and without accounting for these funds to the Defendant; iii) the Plaintiff misrepresented the common areas by converting certain accessory parcels into common areas without the Defendant's knowledge or consent. b) A declaration that the Defendant's AGM held on 7.8.2020, was conducted legally and all resolutions that were approved were valid and binding; and c) a mandatory injunction compelling the Plaintiff to hand over full control of Menara A to the Defendant. The Trial 26. There were two (2) witnesses who took the stand for the Plaintiff, whilst two (2) witnesses took the stand for the Defendant: a) the Ascott International Management Sdn. Bhd.’s Country General Manager, Sulejman Mecja (PW1); S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg b) the Plaintiff’s expert witness (previously employed at RSM Corporate Strategies (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., Lou Hoe Yin (PW2); c) current Management Committee’s Treasurer for the year 2024/2025 (previously a Committee Member and subsequently Chairman for the year 2019/2020, Secretary for the year 2020/2021, & Chairman for the year 2023/2024), Liew Hock Leong (DW1); and d) the Defendant’s building manager since April 2023, Tan Phui Kuan (DW2). Findings and Decision of the Court 27. Having appraised the evidence and all witnesses put forward by all the parties, and having considered the submissions by the learned counsels for both parties, upon careful examination, this Court find that the Plaintiff has failed to fully hand over control of Menara A to the Defendant, as required by the SMA 2013. This failure is a significant breach of the law and has led to several legal issues. Herein are my reasons.

It is apt to note that the Plaintiff in this case has 2 capacities with distinct roles;

as the developer whom has failed to hand over full control of Menara A to the Defendant; and

(ii) as the registered proprietor of 226 units in Menara A and 1 unit located in Menara B, whom has failed to pay statutory charge to the Defendant. A. Whether the Plaintiff has failed to hand over full control of Menara A to the Defendant 29. In the Defence, the Defendant submitted that, prior to the incorporation of the MC, the Plaintiff, as the developer, was fully managing and maintaining both Menara A and Menara B.

Only on 1.2.2010, the Plaintiff proceeded to hand over the maintenance and management of Menara B to the Defendant, in accordance with the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 (“BCPMMA 2007”).

During this time, the Plaintiff retained maintenance and management over Menara A and did not hand over Menara A to the Defendant.

The Defendant further asserted that the newly constituted members of the MC were unaware that Menara A was part of the Strata Roll and that the MC was supposed to manage and maintain Menara A, as the Plaintiff continued to hold on unto Menara A and only handed over Menara B. This led the MC members to believe that they only had to manage Menara B, as it was the Developer that was doing the handover. There was trust upon the developer underlying this and the said situation prevailed for several years.

The Defendant only discovered that the maintenance and management of Menara A was not in accordance with the SMA 2013 in another ongoing legal matter, Kuala Lumpur High Court, Suit No.: WA-22NCvC-384-08/2017 (“Leakage Suit”), on or around 2019.

The Defendant submitted that the discovery was through the Defendant’s Strata Roll, which indicates that the Defendant is statutory obligated to manage and maintain both Menara A and Menara B.

It is trite law that a developer shall, not later than the date of expiry of the preliminary management period, hand over control to the MC. This is envisaged in Section 55 of the SMA

2013.

Hence, it is a mandatory requirement under the strata law for the developer to do a handover the management, maintenance and control to the MC upon its establishment.

However, it is the finding of the court that based on the facts of the case and evidences presented, the Plaintiff, being the Developer, had failed to hand over the control, maintenance and management of Menara A to the Defendant, as the MC and rightful party under the law.

First, a peruse of the Plaintiff’s solicitors’ letter dated 28.6.2019 showed that the Plaintiff recognized the Defendant as the legitimate “Management Corporation established under the Strata Titles Act 1985 with duties and responsibilities as set out in the Strata Management Act 2013” (See pp. 7 & 8 of Bundle B3, Encl. 37).

It is agreed facts that the letter was the Plaintiff’s response to the Defendant's initial letter dated 13.5.2019, where the Plaintiff's solicitors explicitly acknowledged that the Defendant was a legitimate MC established under the STA 1985. This acknowledgment implies that the Plaintiff was aware of the Defendant’s legal authority and responsibilities as outlined in the SMA 2013.

Secondly, the fact that PW1’s testimony during cross-examination that only Menara B was handed over to the Defendant clearly showed that the Plaintiff has never handed over Menara A to the Defendant. [See NOP (Vol.1), p.35] : Okay. Would you agree with me that under the Strata Management Act, handing over means the Developer hands over to the Management Corporation the control of the building to be managed by the MC. S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg Would that be a fair statement? Do you agree? : Yeah. : Okay. Now I am going to put it to you that actually Menara A was actually not handed over to the MC at that time. Only Menara B was handed over. Do you agree? : Yes, Menara B. : Only Menara B handed over? : Yup.

Therefore, the Plaintiff's deliberate and ongoing violation of Section 55 of the SMA 2013 is demonstrated by their failure to deliver Menara A to the Defendant, which also demonstrates that the Plaintiff's retention of control, maintenance, and management of Menara A is in direct violation of this provision. i) Whether there exists Mutual Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. If so, whether the it is legally compliant with the SMA 2013.

The Plaintiff contended that there was a Mutual Agreement with the Defendant, wherein the Plaintiff was responsible for the maintenance and management of Menara A, while the Defendant was tasked with the maintenance and management of Menara B. The Defendant had nevertheless disagreed with this.

According to the Defendant, there was no such Mutual Agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff, and even if there were, such Mutual Agreement is unenforceable and illegal under Sections 55 and 59 of the SMA of 2013.

It is trite law that Section 55 of the SMA 2013 outlines the developer’s responsibility to hand over control of the strata property to the MC once the strata register is opened. This handover includes financial hand-over, administrative hand-over, and documentation hand-over.

Meanwhile, Section 59 of the SMA 2013 deals with the duties and powers of the MC in managing a strata property. Hence, the Plaintiff's actions in managing Menara A directly contradict the MC's responsibilities as outlined in Section 59 of SMA

2013.

The Defendant’s counsel argued that the Plaintiff’s omissions had impeded the Defendant, in its capacity as an MC, from executing the responsibilities and powers concerning Menara

Besides, Section 59 of the SMA 2013 clearly delineate the powers that the MC may exercise, which are not accessible to the Plaintiff as the developer.

The Plaintiff sought to circumvent this requirement by citing an alleged Mutual Agreement for the Plaintiff to administer Menara A, which the Defendant consistently disputed and denied owing to its complete non-existence.

I find that the Plaintiff had consistently failed to provide any evidence of the alleged Mutual Agreement between the parties during Trial.

Initially, the Plaintiff's solicitors asserted that the parties had mutually consented, through an alleged oral agreement and conduct, to the Plaintiff's responsibility to maintain the common areas in Menara A, despite the Defendant's obligations and responsibilities as the MC as outlined in the SMA 2013. Nevertheless, PW1 was unable to substantiate the Plaintiff's claims regarding the purported Mutual Agreement that the parties had reached for such an arrangement during the cross-examination of the Plaintiff's witness. [See NOP (Vol.1) pp.42 to 45] : I said that you have no proof to substantiate the so-called mutual arrangement and understanding. : Nope, no comment. : No comment, okay. Now, I have put it to you that there is no such arrangement and then you disagree and then when I S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg say you have no proof, you say you have no comment. Now my question is, is there anything in the evidence that would actually support your contention that there has been such an understanding? Anything that you can bring the Court to support your position? : Yes, as I mentioned the mutual agreement between both parties. So, from 2010- : Anything in the Court now? : No, I don’t have with me. Whatever is on the statement. : It’s your statement? : Yup.

The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant has never issued a notice/statement of account/invoice to the Plaintiff for maintenance charges and/or sinking funds charges, despite the fact that the Plaintiff is the parcel owner of Menara A (for 228 units) and Menara B (for 1 unit). This, according to the Plaintiff, is a reflection of the alleged Mutual Agreement.

In Defence, the Defendant pointed out that this position was as a result of the misrepresentation of the Plaintiff as a Developer to the MC that they rightfully have control and not because of any alleged Mutual Agreement.

I fully concur with the Defendant that it is because the Plaintiff’s failure to provide control, management, and maintenance of Menara A, which prevented the Defendant from collecting the maintenance and sinking fund costs from the Plaintiff. This is as per the Defendant’s witness’s testimony. [See NOP (Vol.2) p.219] : Now, my suggestion to you is this. It would be wrong for KMC to say that Ascott excluded themselves from being part of Kirana Management Corporation or from paying maintenance fund, maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions, when in fact KMC had never issued any bills for maintenance charges, for sinking fund contributions prior to 2017 or 2019? : KMC couldn’t, without a handover we can’t bill Attana.

Unfortunately, the court find that there is no evidence to substantiate or validate the existence of any Mutual Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. It is an entirely self-serving assertion made without evidence or substance.

It is a well-established legal principle that unsupported assertions should not only be treated as mere assertions and not be taken as facts, but they should also be given no weight in legal proceedings (See Soon Choon Sim v. Soon Cheng Sai & Ors [2011] 8 CLJ 373).

Besides, even if the Plaintiff miraculously proved that there was such a Mutual Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, since the SMA 2013 is a social law meant to make strata living easier for the good of the community or owners of the strata title, the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot just agree not to follow it when the law makes it clear what they must do.

In this connection, I am guided by the Apex Court judgment in Innab Salil & Ors v Verve Suites Mont’ Kiara Management Corp [2020] 12 MLJ 16, where Tengku Maimun CJ make a remarkable ruling: “[26] The SMA 2013 is without doubt, a social legislation. It was passed to facilitate the affairs of strata living for the good of the community or owners of the strata title. Being social in nature, the provisions of the SMA 2013 which safeguard community interests ought to receive a liberal interpretation and not a restricted or rigid one. Accordingly, where two different interpretations are possible, it is the one which S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg favours the interest of the community over the interest of the individual that is to be preferred.”. [Emphasis added]

I am in total agreement with the Defendant’s contention that a weaker class cannot be weakened or stripped of its clear statutory rights by simply contracting out of social law, as this principle was enunciated by Tee Geok Hock J in the case of Blue Green Network Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Pilihan Megah Sdn Bhd [2023] MLJU 1405: “[35] The effect of the Federal Court’s decisions in Ang Min Lee case (supra) and PJ Regency case (supra) and the Court of Appeal’s decisions in Lau Su See v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd Vignesh Naidu A/L Kuppusamy Naidu v. Prema Bonanza Sdn Bhd [2023] 1 MLJ 776, UE E&C Sanjia (M) Sdn Bhd v. Lee Jeng Yuh & Anor [2021] 6 MLJ 864, Sri Damansara Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Ors [2023] MLJU 543 on this point is that where a social legislation is enacted to enacted to protect a weaker class vis-à-vis a stronger class and such social legislation has created express statutory rights and remedies in favour of the weaker class, such express statutory rights and remedies of the weaker class cannot be taken away or diluted by the S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg common law or equitable principle of waiver, estoppel, unjust enrichment or by contracting out of the legislation.”. [Emphasis added]

In our present case herein, the Defendant, a newly formed joint MC comprised of lay members, is at a disadvantage compared to the Plaintiff, who is a seasoned developer with extensive experience in managing large-scale projects. The Plaintiff, having been responsible for the entire development process, including securing the Strata Roll approval, potentially exploited this power imbalance by not fully handing over the management of Menara A to the Defendant, leading the MC in a direction that may not be in the best interests of all residents.

The Defendant’s statutory obligations as a MC are clearly stipulated under Section 59 (1) and (2) of the SMA 2013. However, despite these clear express statutory provisions, the Defendant could not effectively carry out its duties and powers when the Plaintiff had continuously failed to hand over Menara A pursuant to Section 55 of SMA 2013.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s counsel asserted that the Plaintiff was not only compelling the Defendant to pay for the “rental for the use” of the Level 22 swimming pool, gymnasium, and other facilities, which are now common property, but the S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg Defendant was also unable to manage and maintain Menara A and its common properties in accordance with the SMA

2013.

The Defendant further asserted that the Plaintiff's misrepresentation of the Level 22 swimming pool and certain other properties as their own also demonstrated the Plaintiff's actions as a developer in misleading the Defendant. I find that this assertion is not baseless.

Initially, the Plaintiff was the proprietor of these parcels and charged the MC a fee for using the facility (swimming pool, gymnasium and other facilities in Level 22). Subsequently, without the knowledge and consent of the Defendant, the Plaintiff had made an application to the land office to convert these parcels to ‘common area’ which should come under the control and management of the Defendant.

However, the Defendant alleged that it was unaware of this at the material time, as the conversion occurred prior to the appointment of the Defendant's Council Members (which constitute the MC members) on 5.12.2009.

The so-called ‘consent by the defendant’ was given and authorised by a Consent Letter dated 25.11.2009, which was written and signed by a person named Mr. Andy Chee Pau Tong. This person was identified by the Plaintiff's witness, S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg PW1, as the Plaintiff's and the developer's representative, not a council member or representative of the Defendant. [See NOP (Vol.1), p.54] : Not aware yeah. So, this letter, if I can read to you the contents, it says, “kami sebagai Perbadanan Pengurusan”, we as the MC agree to receive all the common areas following the subdivision of the plot of land. Thank you. And signed off by this man called Andy Chee Pau Tong. Do you know Andy Chee Pau Tong? : Err-Nope. Before my time. : You don’t know Mr. Andy Chee? Have you met him before? : Oh, is it the one from-MIDF? MIDF, yeah. I think so. Yeah, I met him before. : You met him before? : Yeah, a long time ago. : You want to tell us who is he? : I think he is the developer. CKL : Developer, okay. [Emphasis added]

The Plaintiff continued to profit from the collection of rent or payment for the use of the pool and other facilities. The fact is, as contended by the Defendant, it only learnt of the conversion after the discovery during the Leakage Suit. This is reflected by PW1’s testimony during cross-examination. [See NOP (Vol.1) p.70] : It’s okay, I will submit on it later. Just need you to answer the question. Now, you mentioned that several discoveries on the Strata was made in the course of this suit. Now, do you acknowledge that what was discovered is that the Defendant found out that Menara A is actually part of them, part of the management corp? That’s a discovery. Do you agree? : Yes. : Okay. And that they discovered that even though Menara A is theirs, they have not been handed over Menara A. Do you agree? : Yup.

DW1 when cross-examined by the Plaintiff’s counsel, testified that the discovery of change of common properties, was only S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg discovered after the Defendant had made an inquiry with the Land Office. [See NOP (Vol.2) p.211] : But to the best of your knowledge, would it be right for me to say, would you agree with my suggestion, that this discovery of change of common properties, as you mentioned, was only discovered after KMC had made an inquiry with the Land Office. You don’t have to care about the date. It was only after your inquiry to the Land Office? : Yes, yes, yes.

This situation is unusual and inconsistent, since the Level 22 swimming pool and gym are now classified as common property and are expected to be managed by the Defendant in accordance with Section 59 (1) (a) of the SMA 2013. [See NOP (Vol.1) pp.57 & 58] : Okay. Just to give context to the whole situation, when they were first handed over in Menara B, the pool was under the developers’ control. So, at that time, in order for the residents in Menara B to S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg use the Level 22 pool, they had to pay rent to Ascott for the use of the pool. Do you agree with that statement? : It is not rent, it is to manage, because we are managing the pool. : Yeah, to use it? : To use it, yes, but not rent. It is to use the pool. : They paid a fee? : They paid a fee to use the pool, yeah. : They paid a fee for you to enable their own residents to use the pool and the gym, right? : And the gym, yes. : Yes, okay. So, after the divesting, when the pool became theirs, agree with me that they continue to still pay for the use or the maintenance or whatever you call it of the pool and the gym until today, right? : Yes, yes.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s stunt of not properly handing over control of Menara A and the relevant common property to the Defendant in this case is clearly in contravention of the SMA

The Plaintiff should not be allowed to “contract out” of Section 55 and 59 of the SMA 2013. In fact, no one could “contract out” any such clauses under the SMA 2013.

This court is convinced that there was no alleged Mutual Agreement between the parties, as both Menara A and Menara B are under the same Strata Roll and should be under the management and maintenance of the Defendant. Most importantly, the purported Mutual Agreement, if at all, is entirely unacceptable and unenforceable in accordance with the express statutory provision indicated in Sections 55 and 59 of the SMA 2013. B. Whether the Plaintiff (as the Developer) is entitled to act as a MC to maintain and manage Menara A after the Strata Roll had been opened and the Defendant was incorporated as a

The Defendant strongly asserted that the Plaintiff, being the Developer, is not entitled to act as the MC to maintain and manage Menara A after the Strata Roll had been opened and the Defendant was incorporated as a MC. This is pursuant to Section 59 (1) (f) of the SMA 2013. “59. Duties and powers of management corporation

The duties of a management corporation shall be as follows: …

to prepare and maintain a strata roll for the subdivided buildings or lands.”.

That is to say, once such duty is vested with the incorporated MC, the Plaintiff should have effectively handed over the management and maintenance of Menara A to the Defendant to carry out their duty accordingly. There are 2 sub-issues regarding this which this judgment will discuss separately. i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to collect and retain the maintenance and sinking fund charges amounting to RM600,667.30 (from January 2010 to May 2018) from the respective owners of Penthouse Unit No. 3301 and Penthouse Unit No. 3302 in Menara A now comes to the force.

It is undisputed that the Plaintiff had collected maintenance and sinking fund from proprietors of the penthouses situated in Menara A in contravention of Section 53(1)(a) of the SMA 2013, and without accounting the same to the Defendant for the collection. Only a legitimate MC, in this case, the Defendant, is allowed to collect maintenance charges and sinking funds from individual parcel owners.

Despite these provisions, the Plaintiff had usurped the duties and powers of the Defendant as a legitimate MC by purportedly charging the penthouse unit owners in Menara A the sum of maintenance charges at the rate of RM0.50/per sq. ft and sinking fund contributions at the rate of RM0.10/ per sq. ft without any basis, nor the rate was passed during any general meetings. This was candidly testified by PW1 during trial. S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg [See NOP (Vol.1), p.67] : Yeah, where is the basis of this collection? What, what rights do you have to collect this and how do you determine the rates? If you don’t know, it is okay, you can say you don’t know. : I don’t know.

Section 59(1)(b) and (c) of the SMA 2013 has made it crystal clear that the Plaintiff had no legal rights to act as a MC nor impose the maintenance and sinking fund charges on the penthouse unit owners.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to collect and retain the maintenance and sinking fund charges amounting to RM600,667.30 (from January 2010 to May 2018) from the respective owners of Penthouse Unit No. 3301 and Penthouse Unit No. 3302 in Menara A and hence should hand over the monies collected to the Defendant to regularize the situation. ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to utilize the amount of RM41,963,826.94 (from January 2010 until December 2019) to maintain and manage Menara A without the knowledge and approval of the Defendant.

77.

Looking at the Plaintiff’s claim for the sum of RM41,963,826.94 being the expenses for the maintenance of Menara A, it begs the questions of whether the Plaintiff made any payment of maintenance and sinking fund to itself and whether the Plaintiff incurred the sum of RM41,963,826.94 out of any maintenance and sinking fund account.

The Plaintiff adduced expert report dated 14.02.2022, which was prepared by expert witness, PW2 and it aimed to support the Plaintiff's claim for RM41,574,960.00 in expenses incurred for the maintenance of Menara A.

The expert reviewed the documents provided by the Plaintiff, including maintenance agreements, payroll slips, payment vouchers, utility bills, and invoices. The expert confirmed that the expenses were incurred but did not verify whether they were ‘properly or rightfully incurred’, which is a key point of contention raised by the Defendant.

The Defendant argued that the RM41 million expenses claim included costs associated with the Plaintiff's service residence business, which are not related to the common property. This argument stemmed from the fact that the Plaintiff, as the developer, also operated a service residence business within Menara A.

After perusal of the evidences at Trial, it is clear that the Plaintiff was unable to prove that it had made any payment of maintenance and sinking fund and it was also not proven as to whether the sums of RM41,963,826.94 was actually expended.

The expert report tendered and relied upon by the Plaintiff made no reference to any source of funds or bank statements or proof of payment to be able to verify the Plaintiff’s claims that it had expended such an amount.

The fact that the Plaintiff had not proven its own assertions to show that it had utilized the amount of RM41,963,826.94 as the purported sums incurred is in breach of Section 59 (2) (c),

(e), (f) and (g) of the SMA 2013. As such, it does not matter whether or not the expert report has confirmed such amounts were correct or that it was incurred for, in principle, the Plaintiff cannot be making such a claim against the Defendant. Hence, I find no room for the issue of set off.

Moreover, the court notices that PW2 was unable to verify if the monies claimed to be expended by the Plaintiff was actually spent or legally incurred by the Plaintiff. [See NOP (Vol.2) p.343] S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg : Okay, so I just want to get an understanding on the scope. So, you will just verify the figures, make sure that it tallies, but do you make sure that they also spent it? As in you used the word bank statements, did you cross-refer with bank statements to see that these monies were actually expended? : No, not all. : Not all. The point I wanted to make was that your job, as you say, to do all this is not technically to verify whether the expenses were legally incurred. That means, you know, whether or not there’s such a need for this repair, whether or not the aircon really broke down. Your job wasn’t to do that, am I right? : No. Yes, yes, you are right.

Secondly, PW2 was unable to verify whether or not the calculations, formulations and position taken by the Plaintiff is in fact rightfully claimed in law. [See NOP (Vol.2) p.41] : No ah, okay. Now, Mr. Lou, I understand that where you are coming from, a lot of S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg the information has been given to you and you are just counter-checking it against documents, which today you cannot verify with the Court whether or not these calculations, formulations and position taken by the Plaintiff is in fact rightfully claimed in law. Is that correct? : Correct. It is not within my scope of work. [Emphasis added]

Hence, this Court find that the Plaintiff is not legally entitled to use the sum of RM41,963,826.94 (from January 2010 until December 2019) to maintain and manage Menara A and the common properties, as the Defendant was unaware of the expense and did not provide any approval to the Plaintiff. C. Whether the Plaintiff (as the owner of 73,855 share units) has to pay the amount of RM39,737,815.66 as outstanding maintenance and sinking fund charges from January 2010 until December 2019 to the Defendant.

The key point to the Defendant’s counter claim is that the Plaintiff is in default to pay the amount of RM 39,737,815.66 being the outstanding maintenance and sinking fund charges from January 2010 until December 2019.

During oral submissions, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant never billed them or issued invoices for outstanding charges. In response, the Defendant contends that this absence of billing stems from the Plaintiff’s failure to properly hand over Menara A, over which the Defendant had no control.

The Plaintiff also raised the argument that since the handover was around 2010, the SMA was not applicable during the particular period, and thus, there is no requirement for the handover to be done.

The Defendant correctly pointed out that initially, the BCPMMA 2007 was in force when the MC (Defendant) was formed in 2006.

The SMA, which replaced the BCPMMA 2007 in 2013, now governs the entire framework of this case as Section 38 of the SMA explicitly states that the Joint Management Committee established under the repealed BCPMMA is considered established under the SMA.

Apart from that, Section 15 of BCPMMA also dealt with the requirement of handover, read together with Section 4(4) of BCPMMA which defined “the Body” as to comprise the developer and the purchasers: S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg “15. House rules

The Body shall be deemed to be dissolved three months from the date of the first meeting of the management corporation for the building.

The Body shall—

not later than one month from the date of the first meeting of the management corporation, hand over to the management corporation.”. [Emphasis added]

Being the proprietors of the 226 units in Menara A and 1 unit in Menara B, the Plaintiff has a duty to pay maintenance charges and sinking funds to the Defendant, pursuant to Section 52(1) of the SMA 2013: “52.Proprietors to pay Charges, and contribution to the sinking fund Each proprietor shall pay the Charges, and contribution to the sinking fund, to the management corporation for the maintenance and management of the subdivided building or land and the common property in a development area.”.

However, to date, the Plaintiff has not paid any maintenance and sinking fund charges to Defendant as the lawful and rightful MC. Therefore, the Plaintiff is in breach of Section 52(1) of the SMA 2013. This position is brought about by the Plaintiff’s wrongful representation to the Defendant that Menara A was not under the control and management of Defendant.

The fact remains that the Plaintiff as a registered proprietor of the parcels in Menara A have the duty to pay under Section 52 of the SMA 2013 for the charges, and contribution to the sinking fund, for the maintenance and management of the subdivided building or land and the common property in a development area.

The Plaintiff premised that it had managed Menara A all these years. Hence, they should not be paying anything to the Defendant. I am not on the same page with the Plaintiff regarding this.

The Plaintiff had in fact assumed the risk of doing so, despite being aware that it was unauthorised, continued to exploit the Defendant’s ignorance over the years. Plaintiff was acutely aware that their actions were in violation of the law.

It would not be equitable or conscionable for the Plaintiff to now appear in court in order to alleviate their burden or to reduce the risk they assumed. The Plaintiff must confront the S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg consequences of its actions and pay the consequence of the long arm of the law.

The fact that the Plaintiff was now claiming for a special damages upon the setting-off of the amount claimed for the purported expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in maintaining and managing Menara A (RM41,963,826.94) with the arrears claimed by the Defendant (RM39,737,815.66 and RM600,667.20), as indicated in prayer 61.10 of the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. This clearly shows that the Plaintiff has agreed with the outstanding maintenance and sinking fund charges owed to the Defendant, and it’s liability to pay the statutory charges to the Defendant, before it can argue a set off, which it did. I shall now further discuss 2 sub-issues under this part of the judgment. i) Whether the Plaintiff’s action of not paying RM39,737,815.66 (and any amount incurred thereafter) to the Defendant (the amount of which is claimed not to be have been claimed by the Defendant previously) will deem the Plaintiff to be a defaulter.

The Plaintiff is evidently in default, as the maintenance and sinking fund charges for the units registered and owned by the Plaintiff have never been paid to the MC. There is no evidence that they ever made any payment to an account established for this purpose under the SMA 2013. The Plaintiff's arrears will affect their voting rights as an owner under SMA 2013.

This brings us to Paragraph 21 (2) of the Second Schedule of the SMA 2013:

“Voting rights of proprietor

A proprietor shall not be entitled to vote if, on the seventh day before the date of the meeting, all or any part of the Charges, or contribution to the sinking fund, or any other money due and payable to the management corporation in respect of his parcel are in arrears.”.

On 20.7.2020, the Plaintiff’s solicitors had via their letter dated

20.7.2020, calculated the sum of RM39,737,815.66 as the amount of maintenance and sinking fund charges payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for the period of January 2010 to December 2019.

It is ironic that the Plaintiff never contested the amount of RM39,737,815.66 owed to the Defendant as the MC. The Plaintiff repeatedly indicated a desire to offset the amount of RM39,737,815.66 against the RM41,963,826.94 purportedly incurred by the Plaintiff for maintenance costs and sinking fund charges for Menara A, thereby facilitating the Plaintiff's ability to propose resolutions at the Defendant’s AGM and participate in the voting process.

In light of the above, since the Plaintiff had not paid the sum of RM39,737,815.66 and any accruing maintenance and sinking S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg charges accrued since January 2020 to date, the Plaintiff is considered a defaulter and cannot be able to vote at the AGM.

In any event, the Defendant as the MC shall at all times adhere to the law and provisions under the SMA 2013. The statute has never empowered the Defendant with a right to set-off the statutory arrears of any registered proprietor. This position of law was agreed to by both the Plaintiff and Defendant’s witnesses during the trial. [See NOP (Vol.1) p.108] : Don’t agree ah. Now, it seems as though you want the Defendant to accept the figures of maintenance that you have incurred and effect a set-off. Am I right? : Yes, we want a set off and start fresh. : Alright. But it is my position that the Defendant has no powers under the SMA to accept these purported expenses as claimed by you to effect this set-off. I am saying that they have no powers in law to actually take the step of accepting your proposal. Do you agree? : Yeah, okay. : Agree yeah. S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg : That’s per law, I am not a lawyer, but I agree with your statement. [Emphasis added] [See NOP (Vol.2) p.248] : Is this you feel, or KMC feels like you can’t proceed with the Sub-MC as long as the claims of RM41 million and RM39 million is not settled? : Alright, it is not KMC’s feeling regarding this. It is like, based on our interpretation of the law, as we know it, based on consultation with lawyers, building managers, etc, we are not empowered to do it. : You are not empowered to do it. : Yeah, the MC is not empowered to do it. ii) If the Plaintiff is a defaulter, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to raise a resolution or vote in the Defendant’s AGM.

Flowing from the fact that the Plaintiff is considered a defaulter by virtues of the SMA 2013 and cannot vote in an AGM, the issue now remains as to whether the Plaintiff can propose a resolution in the Defendant’s AGM.

The Defendant contended that, to which this Court agree, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s position as a defaulter, insofar as the Defendant is concerned, the Plaintiff could not have proposed their intended resolution to set off the sum of RM39,737,815.66 against the sum of RM41,963,826.94 during the 10th AGM on 7.8.2020 because the Plaintiff had only informed the Defendant of a motion to do so on 3.8.2020.

It is apt to note that the Plaintiff had not complied with Paragraphs 12(1), 12(4) & 13 of the Second Schedule of the SMA 2013 which provides: “12. Notice of general meeting

At least fourteen days' notice of any general meeting shall be given to every proprietor. …

No motion shall be submitted at a general meeting unless-

notice of the motion has been given in accordance with this paragraph; or

the motion is a motion to amend a motion of which notice has been so given.

Requisition for motions to be included on agenda for general meeting

Any proprietor may, by notice in writing deposited at the registered office of the S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg management corporation not less than seven days before the time for holding the meeting, require inclusion of a motion as set out in such notice in the agenda of the next general meeting of the management corporation.”. [Emphasis added]

In any event, as discussed earlier, the Plaintiff cannot in law propose a resolution to set off the sum of RM39,737,815.66 against the sum of RM41,963,826.94 as the motion itself is ultra vires the SMA 2013. It seeks to circumvent the provisions of the SMA in relation to collection and payment of maintenance and sinking fund and it also seeks to circumvent the provisions in the SMA relating to the authorisation of expenditures for carrying out the maintenance and management works according to Section 59 (2) (c), (e), (f) and (g) of the SMA 2013.

This proposal is therefore bad in law on all counts. D. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to set off the amount of RM41,963,826.94 against the RM39,737,815.66 that the Plaintiff owes to the Defendant.

The amount of RM41,963,826.94 that was purportedly spent has never been authorized nor approved by the Defendant under the provisions of the SMA 2013. This was corroborated by the Plaintiff’s witness’s testimony during trial. S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg [See NOP (Vol.1) p.108] : Don’t agree ah. Now, it seems as though you want the Defendant to accept the figures of maintenance that you have incurred and effect a set-off. Am I right? : Yes, we want a set off and start fresh. : Alright. But it is my position that the Defendant has no powers under the SMA to accept these purported expenses as claimed by you to effect this set-off. I am saying that they have no powers in law to actually take the step of accepting your proposal. Do you agree? : Yeah, okay. : Agree yeah. [Emphasis added]

The Plaintiff’s witness, PW1 agreed during trial that even if a set-off were arranged, the expenses must have been incurred properly and justifiably, and allowed by the Defendant, namely; [See NOP (Vol.1) p.114] S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg : Sure, sure. Okay, it’s a long part, but I think that the rationale is if that maintenance charges that you are claiming for to waive and all that-Now assuming if such a situation can come about that we can waive or that we can set off, I am not saying that we can, but if that situation does come about, do you not agree that what is being set off or the amount must be one that is reasonably and justifiably accountable, and one that the committee has to approve. The committee of the MC has to approve. : I agree and we are willing to look into it. [Emphasis added]

As the Plaintiff’s main business is the operation of a serviced apartment using the building of Menara A, which follows a hotel concept, it is the Defendant’s submission that the purported expenses of RM41,963,826.94 claimed by the Plaintiff are for running its service residence operations and business.

As such, the Plaintiff has no basis to claim such a huge amount of its own serviced residence operation and business S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg expenses from the Plaintiff, as these expenses are not merely a “maintenance or sinking fund” expenditure incurred by the Plaintiff in managing and maintaining the common property of Menara A.

This fact was clearly admitted by PW2 during his cross examination at the trial when he was referred to the Plaintiff’s own expert report. [See NOP (Vol.2) p.355] : Alright. Now, I’m going to put it to you that the maintenance charges that you referred to here, basically relate to service residence operation expense. Do you agree with my statement? : Sorry ya? : The word maintenance charges that you used in the second sentence at the top is actually maintenance charges for service residence operation expense of the Plaintiff in running their service residence business in Menara A. Would you agree with that? : Okay, yes. [Emphasis added]

Furthermore, PW1 also testified during trial that the management fee claimed is also used to manage Ascott Kuala Lumpur. [See NOP (Vol.1) p.146] Yes, because you submitted a claim for RM40 over million. So out of this RM40 over million, RM5.4million comes from management fees. So, I need to analyse and scrutinise what is your management fee all about. Our management fee including managing Ascott Kuala Lumpur. And that would be a service residence business, right? Your international, known for providing service residences, right? Yes. [Emphasis added]

The Plaintiff's expert witness, PW2, also concurred that the expenses claimed by the Plaintiff in this case are not typical expenses for the maintenance of common properties, but rather for the Plaintiff's own service residence operation expenses. [See NOP (Vol.2) pp.355] S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg : Alright. Now, I’m going to put it to you that the maintenance charges that you referred to here, basically relate to service residence operation expense. Do you agree with my statement? : Sorry ya? : The word maintenance charges that you used in the second sentence at the top is actually maintenance charges for service residence operation expense of the Plaintiff in running their service residence business in Menara A. Would you agree with that? : Okay, yes. [Emphasis added]

The Defendant’s witness, DW2, affirmed through her witness statement that the RM41,963,826.94 expenses alleged to be incurred by the Plaintiff appear significantly higher compared to the expenses of Menara B.

She illustrated this by drawing a comparison in a table to highlight the substantial and unjustifiable difference in expenditures incurred in managing and maintaining the S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg common properties between both Menara A and Menara B (See DWS2B, pp.2 to 7).

It is significant to point out that PW1 acknowledged that the exorbitant amount spent on staff costs is used to manage a service residence, which is significantly more expensive than the costs associated with administering the common properties of a building. [See NOP (Vol.1) p.181] : Yeah, you see, service residence, I am not sure how many staffs they have in the condo, but we have in total I think 90 over staffs which covers engineering, housekeeping, security, maintenance and front office and so forth. So, the payroll alone, the manning alone, is substantial compared to the manning on the condo. So, that’s why I said we cannot compare managing a condo versus managing a service residence. : Okay, thank you. : That’s why the cost of managing a service residence is much higher than the cost of managing a condo.

This was further confirmed by PW2 during the re-examination at trial, that under common sense, such an extensive cost should belong to the expenses for running a business. [See NOP (Vol.2) p.428] PC1 : Okay. One last question, My Lord. You said when you were cross by my learned friend that all this staff cost were for housekeeping, which goes to the business aspect of service residence and not so much to the cost of maintaining the building. You said yes, you agreed based on the payroll. Later you said it is also because you did not check as to the scope of each staff engagement appointment. My question to you is this. What, what, what do you mean that you were not in a position to give opinion whether this task performed by the staff were for maintenance of the building or rather as suggested by a friend, for housekeeping. : On the payroll cost is taken up in the payroll of the company, right? So, I mean, under common sense, it should be the cost of running a business. But in this case, they were talking about sharing of resources in S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg maintaining also the common area, which whether what they have done or how they have done it, all that, I won’t be in the position to testify on each and every one of them what do they do and how many hours do they do but it’s just solely based on the breakdown and the cost assigned from the Plaintiff. [Emphasis added]

On the contrary, DW1 indicated that the cost for management fee and staff costs are lower, as it is budgeted by the Defendant accordingly.

Not only that, PW2 also agreed during trial that the extensive power supply also indicates that the expenses is for the operation of the serviced residence, instead of a mere maintenance of common properties.

Furthermore, it is submitted that not only are the costs exorbitant, the formulation used to calculate the common area was also a problem as this was tabulated by the Plaintiff without reference to any title deeds, the master title, and individual titles. No official body had ascertained the common property areas as well. [See NOP (Vol.2) pp.407 to 410] S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg : Did you reference the common area calculation in, did you make any reference to the title deeds, the master title, and individual titles in coming up with what you deem as common area? : No. … : Okay, but I have read this report, Mr. Lou, and if I may point out to you, number 1, this report makes no finding on common area calculation. If you have a look, this report dated 31st July 2018 was actually prepared by Jurukur Bahan Pendita Sdn Bhd to give an estimated construction cost of the existing building, Ascott building and this estimation was to give the client a cost indication and viability of the building based on cost yardstick method, which I believe if I am not mistaken, is to summarize the total building cost, nothing to do so much with calculation of what common area is. Do you agree? : Yes, but we use that as a reference to work out, as, as guided by the Plaintiff. : Guided by the Plaintiff? S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg : Ya, because again, all the basis were from the Plaintiff. : So, as far as I am concerned, this report does nothing to tell you what is the common area. Do you agree? : Yes.

Hence, the Plaintiff should not exploit the MC by claiming its own business expenses for operating the serviced residence from the Defendant, utilising the MC's maintenance and sinking fund charges that are periodically paid by the residents and proprietors. There is no justification for charging these expenses to the proprietors' funds, as the Plaintiff did not share the revenue generated by the serviced residence with the Defendant.

Instead, the Plaintiff should accurately tabulate the actual costs for maintaining and managing the common properties and building of Menara A (excluding its own business expenses) and allow the Defendant to audit and confirm the exact figures incurred for maintaining the common properties of Menara A, so as to ensure the transparency and prevent the Plaintiff from overclaiming and exploiting the residents’ and proprietors’ money.

Therefore, due to the mistakes, fallacies, and most critically, the improper calculation and delineation of common properties, the court is of the view that the Defendant should S/N QFszFsfGzEusSGOll1iNjg not be held liable for the Plaintiff’s claims, which mostly consist of business expenses of RM41,963,826.94. Conclusion 129. The Plaintiff’s claim is hereby dismissed. Nevertheless, I was taken aback when the Defendant opted to appeal this matter on the basis of the cost.

In short, not only the Plaintiff failed to hand over full control of Menara A to the Defendant as required by the SMA 2013, it also failed to establish that there was Mutual Agreement between the parties. Even if there was Mutual Agreement as alleged, it shall not be enforceable by virtue of the SMA 2013.

As for the Defendant’s counterclaim: The Defendant's Counterclaim as stated in the Defence and Counterclaim dated 29.9.2020 is allowed, and this Court grant the Defendant all the relief sought but for some modifications, namely, I. A declaration that the Plaintiff has violated the provisions of the Strata Management Act 2013 (Act 757) for the management and administration of the project and property of Kirana Management Corporation when:

The Plaintiff failed / neglected / refused to hand over full control of Menara A to the Defendant during the handover of control in 2010;

The Plaintiff acted as if it were a management corporation and collected / levied service charges / maintenance at a rate of RM0.50/square foot and sinking fund contributions at a rate of RM0.10/square foot from the owners of Penthouse No. 3301 [M1A/35/294] and Penthouse No. 3302 [M1A/35/295] in Menara A;

The Plaintiff acted as if it were a management corporation when managing the maintenance of

The Plaintiff, as the owner of 414 share units in Menara B, failed / neglected / refused to settle the total amount of RM222,753.45 (calculation as per