Perbadanan Pengurusan PD1 v SCP Assets Sdn Bhd

Appellant(s): Perbadanan Pengurusan Pd I

Respondent(s): Scp Assets Sdn. Bhd.

• YA Datuk S. Nantha Balan A/L E.S. Moorthy
• YA Dato' Lim Chong Fong
• YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

• The dispute concerned the rates of maintenance charges imposed on car parks within a commercial development project known as Pusat Dagangan Phileo Damansara 1.
• The respondent, having acquired all car park bays in the development, challenged the appellant management corporation's decision to implement and impose different maintenance rates via a private motion.
• The High Court allowed the respondent's claim, declaring the private motion unlawful, invalid, and void, and dismissed the appellant's counterclaim for outstanding charges.

• Whether the appellant, as the management corporation, had the legal authority under Section 60(3)(b) of the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA) to impose different rates of maintenance charges for parcels used for "significantly different purposes".
• Whether the appellant's attempt to impose varied maintenance rates constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the share unit allocation determined by the Director of Lands and Mines.
• Whether the proper legal recourse to challenge the allocation of share units by the Director of Lands and Mines is exclusively through a judicial review application.

• The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the private motion imposing different maintenance rates was premature, unlawful, invalid, and void.
• The Court held that while Section 60(3)(b) SMA allows for different rates for parcels used for "significantly different purposes," this principle was distinguishable as the development in question was solely commercial, unlike mixed developments where such differentiation might be justified.
• The Court found that the appellant's basis for imposing different rates was an arbitrary and collateral attempt to redress perceived inequities in the share unit allocation, which could only be properly challenged via judicial review against the Director of Lands and Mines.