YH Teh & Quek

On the court record

A strata-management practice built around the voting rights of parcel owners in arrears under the Strata Management Act 2013, engaging both the interim-injunction battles and the appeal that framed the governing principle.

YH Teh & Quek is recorded in the corpus in strata-management litigation, appearing in a connected sequence of matters about voting rights in a mixed development. In a Court of Appeal matter, in which the firm acted for the respondent, the court held, under the Strata Management Act 2013, that parcel owners in arrears cannot vote unless the disputes over the arrears are first resolved through a full trial, directing that the case proceed as a writ action. The related first-instance matters explored the same controversy from the interlocutory side. In one High Court matter the firm acted for the defence in resisting an interim injunction, where the questions were whether the plaintiffs had delayed in making the application, whether they had failed to make full and frank disclosure, whether there were bona fide issues to be tried, where the balance of convenience lay, and whether an undertaking as to damages had been given. In another High Court matter, in which the firm acted for the plaintiff, unit holders sought an interim injunction to be allowed to vote and participate in the annual general meeting conducted by the management body before the disposal of their suit, which sought to invalidate earlier meetings at which they had been prevented from voting on the ground that they were in arrears of charges they said had not been calculated according to law; the court allowed the plaintiffs' application with costs of RM2,000. Across these matters the firm is recorded engaged with a live and recurring area of Malaysian property law — the entitlement of parcel owners in a strata scheme to vote at general meetings when their charges are in dispute — appearing on both sides of the interlocutory battle and in the appeal that framed the governing principle. In the injunction matter the court weighed whether the applicants had delayed, whether they had made full and frank disclosure, where the balance of convenience lay, and whether an undertaking as to damages had been given.