Court of Appeal Case: Brightvite Sdn Bhd v Pantai Towers Management [2018] 1 LNS

769

Facts
The Respondent (the Plaintiff) was established as the management corporation of Pantai
Towers. Originally Metroplex owned a total of 30 condominium units of Pantai Towers and
incurred management fees in respect of those 30 units. The management corporation filed a
suit to claim RM 159,146.23 being the outstanding management fees from October 2007 to
December 2008.Well before that, Metroplex had been wound up on 1 August 2008 and the
management fees remain unpaid. Prior to winding up of Metroplex, Brightvite acquired 5 of
the condominium units whereas the remaining 25 units were sold to Benchmark on 14 April
2013 by an order of High Court.

The management corporation demanded the maintenance charges owed to it from

Brightvite and Benchmark, the Appellants (the Defendants) and such maintenance charges
were including the maintenance fees prior to the vacant possessions of the units by Brightvite
and Benchmark up to December 2014. Brightvite and Benchmark were in the position that they
were not liable for management fees until they took vacant possession of the units. The
management corporation then initiated claims from both Brightvite and Benchmark. The
learned High Court held that both Brightvite and Benchmark were liable for the full
management fees, included arrears of management fees that had accrued due prior to their
acquisition. Brightvite and Benchmark appealed against the decision.

Issue
Whether Brightvite and Benchmark are responsible for, or liable to pay, the outstanding
management fees for their respective units prior to their acquisition of those units from
Metroplex?

Decision of the Court

1. Section 45(5) and (6) of the Strata Title Act 1985* (the “Act”) shows that Parliament has
expressly provided for a debt in respect of management fees for a service rendered as
separately recoverable as debts from either the proprietor or its successor in title.

2. “Purchaser to be duly registered as a proprietor” in Section 45(6) of the Act is to be

considered a proprietor for the purposes of recovery of such a debt. In this situation, it
simply means the Brightvite and Benchmark are liable for the debts, notwithstanding that
Metroplex was the registered proprietor for some of the period in respect of which the debt
arose.
3. Section 45(3) allows for a certification from the management corporation as to the specific
sum owing and recoverable as a debt. This allows any prospective purchaser to make
relevant enquiries before deciding to make the purchase.

4. The court affirmed the decision by high court, in which both Brightvite and Benchmark
were liable for the full management fees, included arrears of management fees that had
accrued due prior to their acquisition and dismissed the appeal.

Cases Referred by COA

1. Sri Wangsaria Management Corporation v. Yeap Swee Oo @ Yeap Guan Cheng
[2009] MLJU 1461 (High Court Case)

The Subsequent purchasers refused to pay maintenance charge for the period prior to vacant
possession. The court held that section 45(5) allows the Plaintiff to recover outstanding levied
under section 45(3) from either a proprietor or his successtor-in-title. This judgement was
followed by De Tropicana Management Corporation v. South Malaysia Industries Bhd
[2014] 1 LNS 364.

2. Andrew Loh & Anor v Management Corporation Strata Title No. 082 [1987] 1 MLJ
102 (Singapore case)

The sale to the new owners was completed on a certain date and transfer registered
subsequently some 7 months later. The court held that the new owners were subsidiary
proprietors and liable to pay outstanding maintenance charges by virtue of section 34(7) (in
pari materia with malaysian’s section 45(5) of the Strata Title Act 1985.

*Section 45 of Strata Title Act has been deleted by Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2013,
which is in force from 1 June 2015.
High Court Case: Harvinder Kaur Gujjar Singh v Joint Management Body Perdana
View & Anor [2017] 1 LNS 421

Issue:
1. What is the statutory duty of Joint Management Body?
2. Whether the Plaintiff has established any evidence of damage?