CITY PROPERTIES SDN BHD BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA AVENUE K DAN K RESIDENCE
The payment dispute over utilities is inextricably linked to the Plaintiff's substantive claim of mismanagement and cannot be resolved separately or summarily; the matters require a full trial with oral and documentary evidence, therefore the 5th Defendant's interlocutory applications must be dismissed and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- WA-22NCVC-310-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Badan Pengurusan Bersama Avenue K dan K Residence (JMB No.: 955/2018); Defendant: KLLANDAMARK SDN BHD (No Syarikat: 621691-M); Defendant: Seah Chee Beng (No. K/P: 580930-10-6025); Defendant: Ng Ju Siong (No. K/P: 670925-10-5641); Defendant: Yap Wee Keat (No. K/P: 680601-07-5297); Defendant: City Properties Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 16234-T); Defendant: Yap Yong Seong (No. K/P: 410918-01-5081); Defendant: Ong Boon Bah (beramal di bawah nama dan gaya Ong Boon Bah & Co); Defendant: Wong Soo Thiam (beramal di bawah nama dan gaya Ong Boon Bah & Co)
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 21 January 2021
- Case Number
- WA-22NCVC-310-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (high Court) / Interlocutory Applications (application to Set Aside Interim Injunction and Application for Interim Payment)
- Outcome
- Both applications by the 5th Defendant dismissed; interim injunction maintained; costs in the cause.
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunction, Interim Payment for Utilities, Summary Determination, Mismanagement of Joint Management Body, Discontinuation of Utilities
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Badan Pengurusan Bersama Avenue K dan K Residence (JMB No.: 955/2018)
Plaintiff
KLLANDAMARK SDN BHD (No Syarikat: 621691-M)
Defendant
Seah Chee Beng (No. K/P: 580930-10-6025)
Defendant
Ng Ju Siong (No. K/P: 670925-10-5641)
Defendant
Yap Wee Keat (No. K/P: 680601-07-5297)
Defendant
City Properties Sdn Bhd (No. Syarikat: 16234-T)
Defendant
Yap Yong Seong (No. K/P: 410918-01-5081)
Defendant
Ong Boon Bah (beramal di bawah nama dan gaya Ong Boon Bah & Co)
Defendant
Wong Soo Thiam (beramal di bawah nama dan gaya Ong Boon Bah & Co)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil (high Court) / Interlocutory Applications (application to Set Aside Interim Injunction and Application for Interim Payment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether payment for utilities can be determined summarily and separately from the main claim
- 2 Whether the interim injunction preventing disconnection of utilities should be set aside
- 3 Whether issues of alleged mismanagement and records can be resolved without a full trial
Ratio Decidendi
The payment dispute over utilities is inextricably linked to the Plaintiff's substantive claim of mismanagement and cannot be resolved separately or summarily; the matters require a full trial with oral and documentary evidence, therefore the 5th Defendant's interlocutory applications must be dismissed and the interim injunction should not be lifted.
Court Disposition
Both applications by the 5th Defendant dismissed; interim injunction maintained; costs in the cause.
Orders
- The 5th Defendant's application for interim payment and arrears of utilities dismissed
- The 5th Defendant's application to set aside the interim injunction dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR (BAHAGIAN SIVIL) GUAMAN NO. WA-22NCvC-310-05/2019 ANTARA BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA AVENUE K DAN K RESIDENCE (JMB NO.: 955/2018) PLAINTIF DAN 1. KLLANDAMARK SDN BHD (NO SYARIKAT: 621691-M) 2. SEAH CHEE BENG (NO. K/P: 580930-10-6025) 3. NG JU SIONG (NO. K/P: 670925-10-5641) 4. YAP WEE KEAT (NO. K/P: 680601-07-5297) 5. CITY PROPERTIES SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 16234-T) 6. YAP YONG SEONG (NO. K/P: 410918-01-5081) 7. ONG BOON BAH (BERAMAL DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA ONG BOON BAH & CO) 8. WONG SOO THIAM (BERAMAL DI BAWAH NAMA DAN GAYA ONG BOON BAH & CO) ... DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN JUDGMENT Introduction 1. There are 2 applications filed by the 5 Defendant against the Plaintiff. The application under enclosure 82 is an application by the 5" Defendant for interim payment for utilities supplied as well as payment of the arrears due for utilities used. 2. The application under enclosure 83 is to set aside an interim in injunction obtained by the Plaintiff against the 5 Defendant from disconnecting the utilities. 3. Both the applications are based on the same facts and therefore will be dealt with together. The Plaintiff's Claim 4. The Plaintiff is the managing body for 2 properties to be collectively referred to here as the K Residences. The Plaintiff was set up on 5/9/2018 by an Annual General meeting convened by the 1% Defendant. 5. The 1 Defendant as the developer had already given vacant possession of the building lots on 1/7/2008 but called for the 7% meeting of all the lot owners on 5/9/2018 some 10 years later. 6. In a nutshell the Plaintiff's contention is that during the 10 years before the setting up of the Plaintiff all the Defendants being related to each other had conspired and monopolized the administration of the K residences as well as failed to keep any proper records and accounts of the income and expenditure incurred in the administration and management of the K residences. In the light of this mismanagement the claim by the 5" Defendant of payment of utility charges for the usage of electricity, water, the chiller rooms and rubbish disposa! was unjustified and unauthorized. The 5 Defendant contends that as the Residences had enjoyed the utilities supplied they should pay for the utilities and their failure to do so entitled the 5" Defendant to discontinue providing the utilities and hence these 2 applications. The Decision on the 2 Applications 10. 11. The only issue that the Court had to contend in relation to the applications by the 5" Defendant is whether the issue of payment of the utilities could be determined summarily and separately from the Plaintiff's main claim. As the issue of the payment of utilities is linked to the main issue of the Plaintiff's claim of mismanagement against all the Defendants it is the Court's view that all the issues have to be determined together. Further all the issues can be determined only after a full trial after hearing oral evidence as well as considering all the documentary evidence and the law. 12. At the upfront it is clear that the 1S Defendant’s action in setting up the Plaintiff after 10 years is against the law and cannot be justified by the Defendants under whatever circumstances. Conclusion 13. As the 5" Defendant's claim can only be determined after hearing the entire claim by the Plaintiff, it is not appropriate to determine the issue of payment of utilities separately. 14. Further lifting of the interirn injunction at this stage might cause injustice to the residents of the K residences who are not privy directly to the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. 15. In the upshot both the 5" Defendant’s application are dismissed with order of cost in the cause. Dated: 22.2.2021 DATO’ HAJI AKHTAR BIN TAHIR Judge High Court of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur PARTIES For the Plaintiff: Tetuan Hakem Arabi & Associates Suit No. 8-15-2, 15” Floor Menara Mutiara Bangsar Jalan Liku Off Jalan Riong 59100 Kuala Lumpur For the Defendants: Tetuan Izral Partnership Tingkat 2 Wisma Hamzah-Kwong Hing No. 1 Leboh Ampang 50100 Kuala Lumpur