ARMANEE CONDOMINIUM JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY v BURGESS RAWSON MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD.
Outcome
Conclusion [16] For the above reasons, this Court allowed the appeal in part and the Sessions Court Judgment was revised to the following extent: summary judgment was affirmed on the principal sum of RM308,263.45 [RM339,393.42 less the disputed staff costs] enforcement of which to be stayed pending the disposal of the remaining claims, including, if and when it becomes relevant after the pending appeal on the striking out of the counterclaim. RM5,000.00 was awarded as costs of the appeal.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
Illustrates the partial allowance of an appeal against summary judgment, staying the disputed portion of a property-management-fee claim where unsubstantiated components and an equitable set-off by cross-claim raise triable issues to be determined at trial.
This High Court decision at Shah Alam is an appeal against a Sessions Court order for summary judgment in a claim for property-management fees. A property manager had been appointed by a condominium's joint management body and sued the body in the Sessions Court to recover management fees and other charges for services rendered. The Sessions Court entered summary judgment against the joint management body for a sum exceeding RM339,000 with interest, and the body appealed, contending that there were triable issues, in particular that the claim included unproven staff costs, that the amount was inflated and lacked substantiation, and that the supporting evidence was inconclusive so that a prima facie case had not been made out.
The court accepted that part of the claim raised a genuine triable issue. It held that, although the word "set-off" had not been used, the defence had in substance pleaded an equitable set-off by way of cross-claim, and that whether a set-off exists is a question of law not governed by the particular language of the pleadings, drawing on Hanak v Green and Asia Times Sdn Bhd v The New Straits Times Press. The components of the claim that were unsubstantiated, such as the unproven staff costs, could not properly be the subject of summary judgment and required to be tried.
The court therefore allowed the appeal in part. It did not set the summary judgment aside in its entirety, but ordered that the disputed portion of the judgment sum be stayed pending the disposal of the remaining claims, including, where relevant, the outcome of a pending appeal on the striking out of the counterclaim, so that the contested amounts would be determined at trial rather than summarily. It awarded costs of the appeal. The judgment illustrates the partial allowance of an appeal against summary judgment where part of a management-fee claim is substantiated but other components, and an equitable set-off, raise triable issues.
Why was the appeal against summary judgment allowed in part?
The court found that part of the claim raised a genuine triable issue, in particular unproven and unsubstantiated staff costs, and that the defence had in substance pleaded an equitable set-off by cross-claim even without using the word 'set-off'. Those contested components could not properly be dealt with by summary judgment and required a trial.
What order did the court make?
The court allowed the appeal in part rather than setting the summary judgment aside entirely, ordering that the disputed portion of the judgment sum be stayed pending disposal of the remaining claims, including any relevant pending appeal on the striking out of the counterclaim, so those amounts would be determined at trial. It awarded costs of the appeal.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (1)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ba-12b-55-06-2024)