AMBER COURT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v 1. ) Lonely Planet Inn Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Joann Wen Law 3. ) Ong Phaik Kooi (Mendakwa Sebagai Seorang Wasi & Wakil Kepada Si Mati, Law Nam Poh (No. K/p: 501006-08-5099) 4. ) Law Wey Ann 5. ) Ong Phaik Kooi 6. ) Law Kim Loon 7. ) Ong Chin Ee 8. ) Teoh Yong Yong 9. ) Tee Soon Hin 10. ) Amber Green Sdn. Bhd.

w-02ncvcw-1499-08-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 9 February 2026 • W-02(NCvC)(W)-1499-08/2024 • 20 min read

8 cases cited (0 SG, 8 foreign)

Outcome

Rather, the learned High Court Judge made a specific and express ruling on it in the sealed Order dated 23 August 2024, which states unequivocally: "Tuntutan Balas Yang Dipinda Defendan adalah ditolak.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (w-02ncvcw-1499-08-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Contract - Claim for supply of treated water - Whether Water Services Industry Act 2006 governed Water Supply Agreement - Whether absence of licence rendered the agreement illegal - Whether Appellant still liable to pay for water consumed - Contracts Act 1950 section 66 Contract - Claim for supply of treated water - Whether Judge had erred in allowing Respondents to deduct or set off water charges due from the Appellant against the maintenance charges - Whether such set-off was permitted under the Strata Management Act 2013 - Whether such set-off was an equitable one Contract - Claim for supply of treated water - Whether Judge had erred in dismissing Appellant's Counterclaim - Whether Appellant had proved its Counterclaim

Practice Areas

Contract Strata Management Public Utilities

Judges (3)

Aliza binti Sulaiman Coram Evrol Mariette Peters Delivered Ismail bin Brahim Coram

Counsel (13)

Alvin John & Partners Firm Kin Jong & Co Firm Alvin John Counsel Respondent Amanda John Counsel Respondent Bernard Liew Kin Jong Counsel Appellant Hoon Qian Ying Counsel Appellant Isaac Pereira Counsel Respondent James Lopez a/l Marshall Lopez Counsel Appellant Lee Wan Wei Counsel Appellant Selvarajah Sivalingam Counsel Appellant Selwyn Das Counsel Appellant Sharan Chandran Counsel Respondent Tan Li Shern Counsel Respondent

Parties (10)

AMBER COURT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Appellant Amber Green Sdn Bhd Respondent LONELY PLANET INN Sdn Bhd Respondent Joann Wen Law Respondent Law Kim Loon Respondent Law Wey Ann Respondent Ong Chin Ee Respondent Ong Phaik Kooi Respondent Tee Soon Hin Respondent Teoh Yong Yong Respondent

Case Significance

Confirms that a party must pay for a benefit actually received under a supply agreement even where the agreement's enforceability is in question, applying section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950, and addresses the set-off of utility charges against strata maintenance charges.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns liability to pay for treated water supplied to a condominium, and whether such charges may be set off against strata maintenance charges. The appellant, the management corporation of a condominium, had been ordered by the High Court to pay a substantial sum to the tenth respondent for the supply of treated water, the original developer's water treatment plant having been bought by that respondent after the developer went into liquidation. The management corporation resisted payment, arguing that the Water Services Industry Act 2006 governed the water supply arrangement and that the absence of the requisite licence rendered the agreement illegal, so that no payment was due. The Court considered whether, even if the supply arrangement was affected by the licensing regime, the management corporation remained liable to pay for the water it had actually consumed, having regard to section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950, which requires a person who has received a benefit under an agreement later found to be void to restore or compensate for it. It also examined whether the High Court had been right to allow water charges to be deducted or set off against maintenance charges, and whether such a set-off was permitted or equitable under the Strata Management Act 2013, and whether the management corporation's counterclaim alleging conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty had been rightly dismissed. The Court found no merit in the appeal, holding that the water actually consumed had to be paid for and that the counterclaim had been properly considered and dismissed. It unanimously dismissed the appeal with costs. The judgment is significant for its treatment of liability to pay for benefits received under a possibly unenforceable supply agreement and the set-off of utility charges against strata maintenance charges. The decision confirms that a consumer of a utility cannot escape payment for what it has actually received by pointing to a licensing defect in the supply arrangement, and it clarifies the circumstances in which utility charges may be set off against strata maintenance charges.

Was the management corporation liable to pay for the water even if the supply agreement was unlicensed?

Yes. The Court held that the management corporation remained liable to pay for the water it had actually consumed, having regard to section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950, which requires a party that has received a benefit under an agreement later found void to compensate for it.

Could the water charges be set off against maintenance charges?

The Court upheld the High Court's approach, treating the set-off of water charges against maintenance charges as permissible in the circumstances, and dismissed the appeal, including the challenge to the dismissal of the counterclaim.