Amber Court Management Corporation v Lonely Planet Inn Sdn Bhd & Ors

Appellant(s): Amber Court Management Corporation

Respondent(s):

• Lonely Planet Inn Sdn. Bhd.
• Joann Wen Law
• Ong Phaik Kooi (Mendakwa Sebagai Seorang Wasi & Wakil Kepada Si Mati, Law Nam Poh (No. K/p: 501006-08-5099)
• Law Wey Ann
• Ong Phaik Kooi
• Law Kim Loon
• Ong Chin Ee
• Teoh Yong Yong
• Tee Soon Hin
• Amber Green Sdn. Bhd.

• YA Datuk Ismail Bin Brahim
• YA Datin Paduka Evrol Mariette Peters
• YA Dato' Hajah Aliza binti Sulaiman

• The tenth respondent purchased a water treatment plant and entered into an agreement with the condominium's management body to supply treated water at a fixed monthly rate of RM30 per unit.
• The appellant, having succeeded the previous management body, continued to collect water charges from residents but failed to remit the full sums to the tenth respondent, resulting in a claim for substantial arrears.
• The appellant defended the claim by alleging the water supply agreement was illegal due to a lack of licensing under the Water Services Industry Act 2006 ("WSIA") and counterclaimed for conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty against the first to ninth respondents.

• Whether the appellant, as the party asserting illegality, bore the legal burden of proving that the WSIA had been duly gazetted and brought into operation in the State of Pahang during the relevant period.
• Whether a contract performed without a statutory license is *ex facie* illegal or whether a party may still claim restitution for benefits conferred under section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950.
• Whether the doctrine of equitable set-off permits unit proprietors to set off debts owed to them by a management corporation against their statutory liability for maintenance and sinking fund contributions.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 103 of the Evidence Act 1950, the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving the WSIA's applicability as it did not produce the requisite ministerial gazette notification.
• The Court ruled that even if the agreement were void for lack of a license, the tenth respondent was entitled to compensation on a *quantum meruit* basis under section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950, with the historical rate of RM30 serving as evidence of a reasonable market rate.
• The Court affirmed the High Court's exercise of discretion in allowing an equitable set-off, finding that the claims were so closely connected that it would be unjust to enforce the statutory maintenance debts without recognizing the management corporation's cross-liabilities.