BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA BOTANIKA v BAYOU BAY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

ja-22c-1-02-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 28 October 2025 • JA-22C-1-02/2025 • 2 min read
1 cases cited (0 SG, 1 foreign)

Catchwords

Sivil – Permohonan membatalkan pliding – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a), (b) dan (d) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Kuasa luar biasa Mahkamah – Ujian “plainly and obviously unsustainable” – Tuntutan yang remeh, menyusahkan dan penyalahgunaan proses Mahkamah. Strata – Badan Pengurusan Bersama (JMB) – Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 s 143(2) – Skop kuasa dan fungsi JMB – Pengurusan dan penyenggaraan harta bersama (common property) – Sama ada JMB mempunyai locus standi untuk mendakwa pemaju berasaskan perjanjian jual beli individu dan representasi pra-kontrak – JMB mempunyai personaliti undang-undang tetapi tiada hak substantif dalam SPA antara pemaju dan pembeli individu. Kontrak – Privity of contract – Perjanjian jual beli (SPA) antara pemaju dan pembeli individu – Hak kontraktual hanya pada pihak-pihak SPA – JMB bukan pihak kontrak – Dakwaan salah nyata dan pelanggaran kontrak terhadap pemaju berhubung urus niaga jualan unit – Sama ada “injury to the body corporate” atau “injury to the purchasers personally”. Misrepresentation – Brosur, risalah dan laman sesawang projek perumahan – Kenyataan promosi dan bahasa pemasaran – “Mere puff” dan “invitation to treat” – Sama ada boleh membentuk kausa tindakan misrepresentation / fraudulent misrepresentation / negligent misstatement – Elemen tort: duty of care, reliance, damage – Tiada reliance oleh JMB yang belum wujud ketika representasi dibuat – Representasi kepada pembeli individu, bukan kepada JMB.Striking out – Pleading Plaintif berasaskan salah nyata dan pelanggaran SPA – Tuntutan bagi pihak pembeli individu melalui JMB – Ketiadaan kausa tindakan yang munasabah – Tuntutan tidak bersumber daripada hak JMB di bawah Akta Pengurusan Strata 2013 – Perenggan 4, 27–33 dan 39.2 tidak mendedahkan kausa tindakan yang sah – Sesuai dibatalkan di bawah A.18 r.19(1)(a) dan (b) KKM 2012. Penyalahgunaan proses – JMB cuba mengitar semula pertikaian individu pembeli terhadap pemaju melalui tindakan korporat – Tuntutan tanpa hak undang-undang yang jelas (legal interest) – Usaha memanjangkan tanggungan pemaju melebihi tempoh dan skop yang dipersetujui dalam SPA – Abuse of process di bawah A.18 r.19(1)(d) KKM 2012. Remedi – Permohonan Defendan dibenarkan – Perenggan 4, 27–33 dan 39.2 Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda dibatalkan – Tuntutan Plaintif setakat bahagian tersebut diketepikan – Kos RM5,000 kepada Defendan.

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Strata Management Contract Tort

Judges (1)

Manira binti Mohd Nor Delivered

Parties (2)

BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA BOTANIKA Plaintiff BAYOU BAY DEVELOPMENT Sdn Bhd Defendant

Case Significance

Confirms that a joint management body, whose functions under the Strata Management Act 2013 concern the common property, lacks locus standi to sue a developer on the individual purchasers' sale and purchase agreements, such claims being personal to the purchasers under the doctrine of privity.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns a developer's application to strike out a claim brought against it by a joint management body, made under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiff, the joint management body of a strata development, had sued the defendant developer over alleged misrepresentations and breaches connected with the sale of units in the development. The central question was whether the joint management body had the locus standi to bring such a claim. Reviewing the scope of a joint management body's powers and functions under section 143(2) of the Strata Management Act 2013 — which are concerned with the management and maintenance of the common property — and following authorities such as Dua Residency Management Corporation v Edisi Utama Sdn Bhd and Dr Looi Mun Choon v Paragon Promenade Sdn Bhd, the Court held that although a joint management body has legal personality, it has no substantive right in the sale and purchase agreements made between the developer and the individual purchasers. By the doctrine of privity of contract, only the parties to a contract may sue or be sued on it, and the sale and purchase agreements here were between the developer and the individual buyers, not the joint management body, which comes into existence only after a meeting of the proprietors following completion of the development. Any misrepresentation or deceit alleged to have been practised on individual purchasers before the joint management body was formed was therefore an injury to the purchasers personally, not an injury to the body corporate, and was not the joint management body's to sue upon. The Court further agreed that promotional statements in the development's brochures and website were mere puff or an invitation to treat, carrying no contractual force. Concluding that the plaintiff lacked locus standi to claim relief founded on misrepresentation and breach of the individual sale and purchase agreements, the Court struck out the claim.

Did the joint management body have standing to sue the developer over the sale of units?

No. The Court held that although a joint management body has legal personality under the Strata Management Act 2013, it has no substantive right in the sale and purchase agreements between the developer and individual purchasers. By the doctrine of privity, only the parties to those contracts may sue on them, so the claim was struck out for want of locus standi.

Whose injury were the alleged misrepresentations to the purchasers?

The Court held that any misrepresentation or deceit practised on individual purchasers before the joint management body was formed was an injury to the purchasers personally, not an injury to the body corporate. It also treated promotional statements in brochures and on the website as mere puff or an invitation to treat, carrying no contractual force.

Cases Cited (1)

MY (1)
[2021] MLJU 140

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ja-22c-1-02-2025)