by Angeline Ang

The Plaintiff is one of 3 subsidiary management corporations created in 2019. In 2024, issues arose between the Plaintiff and the Management Corporation (1 Mont Kiara dan Kiara 2 Management Corporation) [“MC”] of the same development area, amongst others, as to use of the management office, a common property within the development area.

The management office was designated as “common property” in the Special Plan, and not a "limited common property" of the Plaintiff’s component.

As the dispute could not be resolved among the Plaintiff and the MC, the Plaintiff initiated a suit against the MC as well as the licensed land surveyor [“LLS”] who was appointed by the MC in 2017 to prepare the Special Plan for the creation of subsidiary management corporations, claiming that the LLS was negligent in the preparation of the Special Plan.

The LLS filed an application to strike out the LLS from the suit, alleging that:

1. LLS had discharged all its professional duties owed to the MC;

2. More than two-thirds of the proprietors approved the draft special plan including all designations of common and limited common properties vide a comprehensive resolution in 2018, which remains valid to date;

3. The purported negligence he is accused of is merely a roundabout way of circumventing the requirements to file a judicial review of the approvals obtained from the Director of Lands and Mines [“PTG”] and Department of Survey and Mapping Malaysia [“JUPEM”]; and

4. LLS does not owe a duty of care of the Plaintiff, who was not even created at the time of his appointment and completion of his professional duties.

The High Court allowed LLS’ application to strike out the suit against LLS, and concurred with LLS’ contentions stated above.

The High Court further added that:

1. Quashing the Special Plan would have grave consequences on the development area as 3 subsidiary management corporations have been established based on the Special Plan, and had operated for over five years in reliance of the same with no dispute;

2. A comprehensive resolution is a reflection of the intention of the proprietors and should not be unilaterally challenged;

3. To attempt to disturb the decisions of PTG and JUPEM without including them as parties to the suit is in breach of the principles of natural justice;

4. The declarations sought by the Plaintiff lack practical effect;

5. The Plaintiff has no legal nexus with LLS and therefore no standing to file a claim for breach of duty by LLS.