BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA TASIK HEIGHTS APARTMENT v ASM DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

wa-24ncvc-4826-10-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 16 November 2025 • WA-24NCvC-4826-10/2023 • 11 min read
4 cases cited (0 SG, 4 foreign)

Catchwords

1. The Plaintiff (P) is the joint management body (JMB) of the Tasik Puteri apartments property development project. 2. The Defendant (D) is the owner-developer of the Tasik Puteri apartments. 3. After P was formed, P discovered that D had not paid the premiums necessary to progress their application for subdivision of the Tasik Puteri apartments so that separate strata titles could be issued, and ownerships be transferred, to the purchasers. Despite continued requests, D did not pay the required premiums, causing the application for strata titles to stall. 4. P then filed this Originating Summons for the relief of an Order that D pays the premiums required, and that D completes and settles the application for subdivision, to get the strata titles. 5. Should P’s Originating Summons be allowed?

Practice Areas

1. The Plaintiff (P) is the joint management body (JMB) of the Tasik Puteri apartments property development project. 2. The Defendant (D) is the owner-developer of the Tasik Puteri apartments. 3. After P was formed, P discovered that D had not paid the premiums necessary to progress their application for subdivision of the Tasik Puteri apartments so that separate strata titles could be issued, and ownerships be transferred, to the purchasers. Despite continued requests, D did not pay the required premiums, causing the application for strata titles to stall. 4. P then filed this Originating Summons for the relief of an Order that D pays the premiums required, and that D completes and settles the application for subdivision, to get the strata titles. 5. Should P’s Originating Summons be allowed?

Judges (1)

Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James Delivered

Counsel (5)

Jasbeer, Nur & Lee Firm Shahrizan & Co Firm Emmy Hazwani binti Jamil Counsel Plaintiff Khairul Shahrizan Bin Hamizi Counsel Plaintiff Noor Syakirah binti Khalil Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

ASM Development Sdn Bhd Respondent BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA TASIK HEIGHTS APARTMENT Applicant

Case Significance

BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA TASIK HEIGHTS APARTMENT v ASM DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated November 16, 2025 (citation: wa-24ncvc-4826-10-2023). <p>The joint management body (JMB) of Tasik Heights Apartment filed an originating summons seeking an order that the developer-owner pay outstanding premiums required for the subdivision application so that separate strata titles could be issued to purchasers. The key issue was whether the developer had an obligation under the Strata Titles Act 1985 to pay the premiums and complete the strata title application, some 30 years after the apartments were sold. The court allowed the application, orde The case was decided by Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James. Counsel appearing: Emmy Hazwani binti Jamil (counsel for plaintiff), Khairul Shahrizan Bin Hamizi (counsel for plaintiff), Noor Syakirah binti Khalil (counsel for defendant).

Summary

The joint management body (JMB) of Tasik Heights Apartment filed an originating summons seeking an order that the developer-owner pay outstanding premiums required for the subdivision application so that separate strata titles could be issued to purchasers. The key issue was whether the developer had an obligation under the Strata Titles Act 1985 to pay the premiums and complete the strata title application, some 30 years after the apartments were sold. The court allowed the application, ordering the developer to pay the premiums and complete the subdivision application, with costs of RM7,000.

What was the outcome of BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA TASIK HEIGHTS APARTMENT v ASM DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.?

<p>The joint management body (JMB) of Tasik Heights Apartment filed an originating summons seeking an order that the developer-owner pay outstanding p...

Statutes Cited

Strata Management Act 2013
s 21(1)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (Cap 318)
s 8

Cases Cited (4)

MY (4)
[2021] 6 CLJ 599 [2021] MLJU 423 [2023] AMEJ 1247 [2023] MLJU 1405