TARGET TERM SDN. BHD. WALDORF AND WINDSOR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

TARGET TERM SDN. BHD. WALDORF AND WINDSOR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

The Court held that operating a commercial carpark business by licensing parking bays to customers constitutes licences, not tenancies, and thus does not amount to a prohibited 'dealing' under ss 34(2) and 69 STA 1985; accessory parcels that are expressly shown as such on a certified strata plan remain parcel property and do not convert into common property merely because not used in conjunction with the principal parcel; consequently the SPA was not illegal or void. Target Term is liable for back maintenance charges: for pre-1 June 2015 period at RM0.31/ft2 plus RM25 per carpark as developer fixed; for 1 June 2015–23 Aug 2016 at RM3.4045 per share unit (with sinking fund 10% = RM0.34045...

Citation
W-02(NCvC)(W)-1890-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Target Term Sdn Bhd; Appellant/developer: Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd; Respondent/management Corporation: Waldorf and Windsor Management Corporation
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 October 2024
Case Number
W-02(NCvC)(W)-1890-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; High Court orders declaring the SPA void set aside in part; cross-appeal for general and exemplary damages dismissed.
Legal Topics
Accessory Parcel, Common Property, Dealing Vs Licence, Maintenance Charges, Sinking Fund, Development Order, Locus Standi
Source Language
Malay/English
Property/strata Law Contract Law Corporate Law Accessory Parcel Common Property Dealing Vs Licence Maintenance Charges Sinking Fund +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Target Term Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff

Malaysia Land Properties Sdn Bhd

Appellant/developer

Waldorf and Windsor Management Corporation

Respondent/management Corporation

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commercial operation of carpark accessory parcels constitutes a 'dealing' under ss 34(2) and 69 Strata Titles Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether accessory parcels shown on a certified strata plan lose parcel status and become common property if not used in conjunction with the principal parcel
  3. 3 Whether breach of a development order invalidates transfer of accessory carpark parcels

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that operating a commercial carpark business by licensing parking bays to customers constitutes licences, not tenancies, and thus does not amount to a prohibited 'dealing' under ss 34(2) and 69 STA 1985; accessory parcels that are expressly shown as such on a certified strata plan remain parcel property and do not convert into common property merely because not used in conjunction with the principal parcel; consequently the SPA was not illegal or void. Target Term is liable for back maintenance charges: for pre-1 June 2015 period at RM0.31/ft2 plus RM25 per carpark as developer fixed; for 1 June 2015–23 Aug 2016 at RM3.4045 per share unit (with sinking fund 10% = RM0.34045...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; High Court orders declaring the SPA void set aside in part; cross-appeal for general and exemplary damages dismissed.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 3 to 18 and 20 to 21 of the High Court order dated 21 September 2021 set aside
  • Cross-appeal of the MC for general and exemplary damages dismissed