S.S. Tieh's Malaysian Law Updates

The Strata Management Tribunal is not a court within the context of Section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 or Section 3(2) of the Subordinate Courts Act , but an inferior tribunal created by the Strata Management Act 2013.   The Court of Appeal in Yong Kein Sin & Anor v Perbadanan Pengurusan Springtide Residences and other appeals [2025] MLJU 1469 held at paragraph [31] of the judgment as follows:   “[31] We are of the view that an award of a SMT does not attract the application of the doctrine of res judicata. Our reasons are as follows: (1)     once a “court’ has finally decided a case (1 st Case), the decision in the 1 st Case may affect subsequent cases in other “courts” by way of an application of the doctrine of res judicata - please refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered by Peh Swee Chin FCJ in Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd   [1995] 3 MLJ 189, at 197 to 198, 198 and 199 to 200. (2...

  The Strata Management Tribunal is statutorily entitled to draw on its own knowledge and expertise. Section 114(2)(e) of the Strata Management Act 2013 provides that:   “(2) The powers conferred upon the Tribunal under subsection (1) shall include the following: to draw on its own knowledge and expertise;...”   The words “... to draw on its own knowledge and expertise ...” which also appear in Section 21(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005, have been interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Kasugi Prima Sdn Bhd v Cobrain Holdings Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2025] MLJU 676 to include determination of matters of procedure, facts, substance, and merits, as follows:   “[35] ... An arbitrator’s authority under section 21(3)(b) of the AA is NOT LIMITED to only determine matters of procedures (and can be invoked to determine matters of facts, substance, and merit) .”

The Strata Management Tribunal is bound by the 4 corners of pleadings filed before it. In Foo Kok Kheong & Anor v Tribunal Strata & Anor [2024] MLRHU 1285 , the High Court held that:   “ [44] In any event, I have gone through the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim of the applicants in AIS-4, which were not processed by the Tribunal due to technical non-compliance. The Counterclaim did not even challenge the legality of the levy, collection of maintenance charges and/or sinking fund. It only arose in this application for judicial review. Even if the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim were to be processed by the Tribunal, the applicants are bound by their pleadings. The Tribunal, just like any other Tribunal, must confine itself to the four corners of the pleading ; see Ranjit Kaur v Hotel Excelsior (M) Sdn Bhd [2010] 8 CLJ 629 FC.”

Yong Kok Yeap & Anor v Uruswajar Concrete Sdn Bhd  [2026] AMEJ 0472 THEYAKARAJA A/L PALANIANDY v MAJLIS PEGUAM [2024] AMEJ 1406   LIM MEI JIN v LOH YUEN TUCK [2025] AMEJ 0399   SHRI @ INDRAN RAM A/L RAMASAMY v MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA [2022] AMEJ 1722   LOGICAL OPERATIONS CONSORTIUM SDN BHD v ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABDUL RAZAK & ANOR [2017] AMEJ 1059   TRIP GUARD SDN BHD v IMMANUEL CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD [2017] AMEJ 1201   ZINCO MANUFACTURING SDN BHD v SIN YEAP HOLDINGS (M) SDN BHD (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI SIN YEAP TIMBER MOULDING SDN BHD) [2009] AMEJ 0026   KTL SDN BHD v AZRAHI HOTELS SDN BHD [2003] AMEJ 0158   CELCOM (MALAYSIA) BERHAD v INMISS COMMUNICATION SDN BHD [2003] AMEJ 0178   ANTARA ELEKTRIK SDN BHD v BELL & ORDER BERHAD (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI BELL & ORDER SDN BHD) [2002] AMEJ 0079 MALACCA SECURITIES SDN BHD v LOKE YU [2002] AMEJ 0014   AJE BEST-ON SDN BHD v YB AHMAD BIN OMAR @...

  YONG KOK YEAP & ANOR v URUSWAJAR CONCRETE SDN BHD [2026] MLJU 673   THEYAKARAJA A/L PALANIANDY v MAJLIS PEGUAM & ANOR [2024] MLJU 1470   LIM MEI JIN (SUING AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LOH YUEN WENG (DECEASED) (APPOINTED AS THE EXECUTRIX AND TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF LOH YUEN WENG (DECEASED)) & ANOR v LOH YUEN TUCK [2025] MLJU 478   SHRI @ INDRAN RAM A/L RAMASAMY v MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA [2022] MLJU 3019   KIM LAM HUAT BUILDERS SDN BHD v ANG KUAH CHUA DAN SATU LAGI [2021] MLJU 210   SHIKOH ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD v URUSWAJAR CONCRETE SDN BHD [2019] MLJU 1723   LOGICAL OPERATIONS CONSORTIUM SDN BHD v ABDUL RAHIM BIN RAZAK & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL [2018] 1 MLJ 503   LOGICAL OPERATIONS CONSORTIUM SDN BHD v ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABDUL RAZAK [2017] MLJU 1330   TRIP GUARD SDN BHD v IMMANUEL CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD [2017] MLJU 1138 LOGICAL OPERATIONS CONSORTIUM SDN BHD v ABDUL RAHIM BIN RAZAK DAN SATU ...

https://themochastories.wordpress.com/2024/04/28/the-ad/ https://themochastories.blogspot.com/ https://themochastories.wixsite.com/mocha

*Abbreviations   HC = high court  COA = court of appeal  FC = federal court   Ngu Toh Tung & 7 Ors v Superintendent of Lands & Survey, Kuching Division, Kuching & Anor [COA] administrative law; land acquisition J & C New Poly Catering Sdn Bhd v TTMP Bakun Consortium Sdn Bhd [HC] The general rule is that a high court will not issue an injunction to restrain the execution of another high court order. However, the high court possesses inherent jurisdiction to do justice in each case. Thus, an interim injunction could be issued to restrain execution of a decree if it could be shown that the execution would result in an injury to the party against whom the execution was directed at. As a matter of practice, applications for a garnishee order are made before the sar or dr and the decision is appealable to a judge in chambers. Even though under the rules of the high court 1980, service of originating process or other court documents on a corporation...