INTRODUCTION
On 19 December 2025, the High Court in Suntharalingam a/l V Veluppillai & Ors v Icon City JMB & Ors [2025] MLJU 4866 held that a Joint Management Body (“JMB”) is entitled to impose different maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions across the different components of a mixed development, based on the exclusive use and enjoyment of certain facilities designated as limited common property.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Icon City is a mixed development consisting of 10 distinct components, including shop offices, shop lots, residential towers, office towers, Volt, Arc, car park and MSU.
Within Icon City, certain facilities were designated as “Limited Common Property” for the exclusive use and enjoyment of specific components: –
- a) The residential towers had exclusive access to facilities including swimming pools, a sauna, gymnasium, roof garden, BBQ deck and picnic terrace.
- b) The office towers had exclusive access to a business centre, executive club and gymnasium.
- c) The remaining components did not enjoy those facilities.
The parcel proprietors (Plaintiffs) had executed the SPAs and Deeds of Mutual Covenants (“DMCs”) which had expressly provided for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the Limited Common Property and agreed with their obligation to the payment of additional charges and sinking fund contribution for its maintenance and management.
At the first Annual General Meeting of the JMB (“1st AGM”), the JMB passed a special resolution approving the imposition of additional charges on parcel proprietors who have exclusive use and enjoyment of specified Limited Common Property. Subsequent agm and extraordinary general meeting (“EGM”) resolutions were passed approved different rates and annual operating budgets for the respective components.
The Plaintiffs within Icon City argued that the Strata Management Act 2013 (“SMA 2013”) required the JMB to impose one uniform rate based on the allocated share units of all parcels. They relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Muhamad Nazri Muhamad v JMB Menara Rajawali & Anor [2019] 10 CLJ 547 ; [2020] 3 MLJ 645 (CA).
FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT
Menara Rajawali distinguishable
The High Court held that the facts in Menara Rajawali are materially different and distinguishable from the present case as Icon City is a stratified mixed commercial and residential development comprising ten (10) distinct components, with Limited Common Property, whereas Menara Rajawali involved a single building development without any designation of Limited Common Property or exclusive common property.
The statutory framework under Section 32(3) of the SMA 2013 was not considered in Menara Rajawali. In that case, no additional by-laws were made by the JMB, and the operation and effect of Section 32(3) of the SMA 2013 were not ventilated before the court.
Statutory Framework
Section 32(3) of the SMA 2013 authorises a JMB, by special resolution, to make additional by-laws regulating the control, management, administration, use, and enjoyment of common property, including common property of which the use is restricted.
Section 32(4) of the SMA 2013 further provides that these additional by-laws shall bind the JMB, parcel owners and subsequent owners or occupiers.
By-law 4 read with by-law 2(1)(a) of the Third Schedule to the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015, explicitly permits a JMB, through a written agreement with a proprietor, to grant exclusive use and enjoyment of part of the common property.
SPAs and DMCs were binding
The Court rejected the Plaintiffs’ contention that the DMCs were void under section 148 of the SMA 2013. The terms of the DMCs did not conflict with the Act and were binding on the parties.
The Plaintiffs were fully aware and explicitly agreed under the SPAs and DMCs to the exclusive use of the Limited Common Property, and their obligation to pay additional charges for the maintenance and management of such exclusive use of the Limited Common Property.
It would be unconscionable for the Plaintiffs to insist that the maintenance costs of the Limited Common Property be borne by other parcel owners who had no access to or benefit from them.
Different rates may be imposed where they are fair and proportionate
The High Court relied on and adopted the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal case of Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 948 which held that it would be unjust and inequitable to require parcel owners to contribute towards facilities which they could not use or enjoy.
The governing test was whether the rates were “just and reasonable” under the SMA 2013 and “fair and justifiable” under the SPAs. The assessment had to consider the type of parcel, the nature of the facilities enjoyed and the proportionality of the expenses incurred, instead of mechanically applying one uniform rate. Different rates are lawful when reflect equitable allocation of responsibility aligned to actual use and benefit.
The JMB had prepared detailed and comprehensive operating budgets identifying the expenses attributable to shared common property and the respective Limited Common Property.
The Court further noted that the Commissioner of Buildings and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had informed the JMB that different rates could be imposed for different facilities if approved at a general meeting. The required approvals had been obtained at the AGMs.
Therefore, the Court found that the different rates approved by the resolutions at the AGMs were fair and reasonable and that the apportionment had a proper basis.
CONCLUSION
The High Court held that the JMB was entitled to impose different maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions across the different components of Icon City, based on the exclusive use and enjoyment of the Limited Common Property.
The decision of the High Court is currently pending an appeal in the Court of Appeal.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
A JMB may impose different rates where different components have exclusive use and enjoyment of different Limited Common Property facilities.
Sale and Purchase Agreements and Deeds of Mutual Covenants, additional by-laws which expressly provided for the creation of Limited Common Property for the exclusive use of certain specific components are binding on the parcel proprietors.
Resolutions in the JMB general meetings approving operating budgets and expenses for the shared common property and Limited Common Property for exclusive had supported the fair and reasonable different chargeable rates applied to the respective components.
Parcel owners who do not have access to or benefit from exclusive facilities should not be required to bear the expenses of maintaining those facilities.
The governing test is whether rates are “just and reasonable” under the SMA 2013 and “fair and justifiable” under the SPAs, assessed contextually having regard to the type of parcel, the nature of the facility enjoyed, and the proportionality of the expenses incurred.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for specific legal advice. No person should act (or refrain from acting) based on this article without obtaining advice on the specific facts and circumstances. Halim Hong & Quek does not accept responsibility or liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this article. Halim Hong & Quek reserves the right to update, amend or withdraw this article at any time. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to DISPUTES DECODED BY HHQ, our bi-monthly legal update, at https://mailchi.mp/hhq/2nofd6rjlt to receive our latest legal updates and articles. You may also visit the HHQ website at https://hhq.com.my/insights/ for further articles and insights from our team.
About the authors
Chew Jin Heng
Principal Associate
Dispute Resolution
Halim Hong & Quek
jhchew@hhq.com.my
○
Hee Sue Ann
Principal Associate
Real Estate
Halim Hong & Quek
sahee@hhq.com.my
