围篱社区：不付费的居民要自己开闸 [2022] MLJU 1324

上诉庭判决

1. 上诉庭裁决，批准八打灵再也市政厅（MBPJ）管辖区内的居民协会有权对拒绝缴付保安费的会员（居民）施加条件，即拒绝付费者，在住宅区入口处，需自行拉起栏杆进入住宅区，同时谕令市政厅支付8000令吉堂费予Parkville居民协会。
2. 此案的起因是，某花园住宅居民协会对拒绝付费会员或居民施加条件，即保安员可以无需为这些拒绝付费者打开栏杆，而是由他们自行拉起栏杆进入住宅区。
3. 2022年7月，莎阿南高庭裁定八打灵再也市政厅不允许居民协会施加条件的决定是合理的。居协不满高庭的裁决，在上诉庭上诉。
4. 上诉庭批准了居协的申请。
5. 上诉庭指出，该区的居民协会规定拒绝缴付保安费会员，必须在入口处自行打开栏杆的条件，是合理的。这条件也符合联邦法院在2015年Au Kean Hoe起诉D’Villa Equestrian居民协会案中的裁决，即根据1974年道路，沟渠及建筑物法令第46(1)(a)条文，即建造保安亭和栏杆，并不构成‘障碍。

1. The Court of Appeal has ruled that a residents’ association (RA) within the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) can impose a condition requiring non-paying members living in the residential area to operate the boom gates themselves without the assistance of security guards.
2. Additionally, the MBPJ is required to pay RM8,000 in legal costs to the Parkville Residents Association.
3. The case stemmed from a decision by a residents’ association (RA) requiring non-paying members to operate the boom gates themselves without the assistance of security guards.
4. In July 2022, the Shah Alam High Court ruled that the MBPJ’s decision to disallow such conditions imposed by residents’ associations was reasonable. However, the residents’ association appealed to the Court of Appeal.
5. The Court of Appeal granted the residents’ association’s application, stating that the condition imposed by the association was reasonable.
6. The condition also complies with the Federal Court’s decision in the case of Au Kean Hoe v D’Villa Equestrian Residents Association, where the Federal Court held that the construction of guardhouse and boom gates does not constitute an “obstruction” under Section 46(1) (a) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974.

高庭判决

1. 某花园住宅区居民协会跟市议会(MBPJ)申请更新在2018年已经批准的”社区保安计划”(gated and guarded community)。市政府厅于2020年12月批准该居协的申请，为期两年，直至2022年12月。
2. 2021年初起，居协开始对不愿付”社区保安计划”保安费的居民，施予额外规则，既是不付费的居民要自己开保安处的闸门(有关规则)。这引起了好些不付费居民的不满，并向市议会(MBPJ)投诉。市议会接着致函指示居协取消有关规则。
3. 居协则回复市议会，有关规则是跟随2015年联邦法院的判决(Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’Villa Equesterian [2015] 4 MLJ 204)，所以有关规则是合情合理合法的。
4. 市议会回复居协，有关规则违反了市议会的社区保安计划的指南，第4(d)条款指南，车辆的司机不可以被指示下车手动操作任何障碍物。The respondent sent a second letter on the same date attaching “Garis Panduan Komuniti Berpengawal MBPJ (Penambahbaikan 2017)” where para 4(d) of the said guidelines provided that drivers of vehicles cannot be instructed to get down from their cars to manually operate any barriers.
5. 市议会在07.04.2021通过书信通知居协，市议会在30.03.2021决定，居协必须遵守社区保安计划的指南，不能执行有关规则。
6. 居协不满市议会的决定，于是在2021年3月30日入禀法庭，申请司法审核(judicial review)，要求法庭审核/探讨市议会拒绝有关规则的决定。
7. 法庭觉得，此案不能与联邦法庭的裁决相提并论。在联邦法院的案件，市议会批准了”社区保安计划”，并没有限制居协不能实行类似有关规则在他们的花园。此案的诉讼者，就只是一名居民(其他在花园里的居民都同意”社区保安计划”)告居协。原告不同意”社区保安计划”，不同意居协实行不付费的居民要自己开保安的门闸，这样让他进出不方便。所以联邦法院的考量只是在，这样的规则是否带给这一名居民(除了这名居民，全部的居民全部都同意付费)不方便。然而在此案，高庭要决定的是，居协是否可以忽视/不遵守地方政府设下的社区保安计划指南。In Au Kean Hoe’s (supra) case the complaint was that the resident was inconvenienced as he had to open the boom gates himself. In the case before this court, the issue was whether the condition imposed by the local government on the residents’ association operation of the boom gate by non-paying residents of the residents’ association or non-members of the residents’ association can be disregard by the resident association.
8. 法庭指出，该市政府在2018年批准居协的社区保安计划时，已经附加有关的指南。而有关指南的第4(d)条款规定，居协不得指示司机下车手动操作任何障碍物。其实，这个4(d)条款也是在2015年联邦法院的判决之后，MBPJ市议会检讨和修改了社区保安计划指南，目的就是不让居协为难不付费居民和来访花园住宅区的访客。where para 4(d) of the said guidelines provided that drivers of vehicles cannot be instructed to get down from their cars to manually operate any barriers.
9. 另外，有关指南的第2(f)和4(d)条款也提及，市议会有权禁止居协要求不付费的居民和非居协成员的居民，自己操作或者打开保安处的门闸。Clause 2(f) and clause 4(d) of the Garis Panduan Komuniti Berpengawal MBPJ (Penambahbaikan 2017) allows MBPJ to prohibit the residents’ association from requiring non-paying residents and non-members from operating or opening the boom gates themselves without the assistance of security guards.
10. 当时居协在2018年，第一次申请跟市议会申请”社区保安计划”时，居协并没有提出有关社区保安计划指南的反对。居协没有在2020年，第二次申请更新”社区保安计划”的准证时提出任何反对。这个反对只是在居协和不付费的居民产生纠纷，才开始‘提出’。
11. 法庭裁定市政府有权禁止任何组织向花园住户强加不合理的条件，因此驳回居协的司法审核申请。

居协不满高庭的裁决，目前已经在上诉庭上诉。

详细的案情和判决，请阅读以下的英文版文章。

GROUNDS OF JUDGEMENT

1. This is an application for judicial review against the decision of the respondent (“MBPJ”) dated 30.03.2021 rejecting the applicant’s application to impose a rule that non-paying owners and residents or non- members of the residence association in the residential area have to operate the boom gates themselves without the assistance of security guards (“the Rule”).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. On 8.12.2020 the respondent approved the applicant’s application to renew their guarded community.
3. The said approval was until 1.12.2022. The respondent stipulated the residence association cannot direct the non-members to register with the guard house in order to gain entry in the residential area. The residence association cannot impose rule that non-paying owners and residents or non-members of the residence association in the residential area have to operate the boom gates themselves without the assistance of security guards (“the Condition”).
4. The respondent sent a second letter on the same date attaching “Garis Panduan Komuniti Berpengawal MBPJ (Penambahbaikan 2017)” where para 4(d) of the said guidelines provided that drivers of vehicles cannot be instructed to get down from their cars to manually operate any barriers.
5. On 21.12.2020 the applicant wrote to the respondent informing that they would be imposing the condition on non-members based on the Federal Court decision in Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’Villa Equesterian [2015] 4 MLJ 204.
6. Few residents complained to respondent. A visit by MBPJ officers on 27.1.2021 where the officers informed that based on the guidelines the said condition requiring non-paying members and non-members to open the boom gate themselves cannot be allowed.
7. On 29.1.2021 the resident’s association wrote to MBPJ again stating it is entitled to impose the condition based on the decision in Au Kean Hoe’s (supra).
8. The residents’ association insisted the decision in Au Kean Hoe’s (supra) authorized their conduct. Vide letter dated 29.1.2021, the residents’ association requested MBPJ to exempt it from complying with the said condition of the 2020 approval.
9. A meeting was held on 30.3.2021 where the respondent rejected the residents’ association’s request. The residents’ association required the residents who did not participate in the guarded community scheme to lift the boom gate barring access to the residential area themselves without the assistance of security guards. This amounted to a breach of the 2020 approval conditions from MBPJ.
10. Vide letter dated 7.4.2021, MBPJ informed the residents’ association that MBPJ Mesyuarat Penuh Majlis Bilangan 2 of 2021 had made a decision on 30.3.2021 to reject the residents’ association’s request. The residents’ association was informed they were required to comply with the 2020 approval and MBPJ 2017 guarded community guidelines.
11. Dissatisfied with the decision of the respondent, the applicant has now filed this application for judicial review.

ISSUE

12. The crux of this application for judicial review lies in the differing comprehension of the case of Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’Villa Equesterian [2015] 4 MLJ 204. The applicant’s contention is that the case of Au Kean Hoe (supra) is applicable in this case, and thus, the respondent must follow the decision of the court in Au Kean Hoe’s (supra) case.
13. The respondents on the other hand, argue that the case of Au Kean Hoe (supra) does not support the applicant’s contention.

DELIBERATIONS

14. Au Kean Hoe (supra) states that the local authority has the power to regulate the guarded community schemes under section 101(v) of the Local Government Act 1976, Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 and Town and Country Planning Act 1976.
15. The case of Au Kean Hoe (supra) relates to the tort of nuisance and obstruction brought by a resident of a residential area against the residents’ association. Part of that claim is that the boom gates and guard house built were illegal structures notwithstanding the approval granted for these structures by MBPJ as part of a wider approval for a guarded community scheme.
16. The questions of law in Au Kean Hoe (supra) relates to the following:

(a) whether the erecting of a guard house and a boom gate across a public road in a residential area amounts to an obstruction within the meaning of section 46(1) (a) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974; and

(b) whether the local government is empowered to authorize or otherwise approve an obstruction within the meaning of section 46 (1) (a) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974.

17. In the view of this court, the case of Au Kean Hoe (supra) can be distinguished from this case as there is nothing in Au Kean Hoe’s (supra) case which relates to conditions imposed by MBPJ. In Au Kean Hoe’s (supra) case the complaint was that the resident was inconvenienced as he had to open the boom gates himself. In the case before this court, the issue was whether the condition imposed by the local government on the residents’ association operation of the boom gate by non-paying residents of the residents’ association or non-members of the residents’ association can be disregard by the resident association.
18. This court observes the applicant has not challenged the local authority guidelines in this judicial review application. According to the respondent, the guidelines issued by the local authority were amended in 2017, having taken into consideration the decision of Au Kean Hoe’s (supra) case which was decided in 2015.

Can the residents’ association insist that non-paying owners and residents or non-members of the residence association in the residential area are to operate the boom gates themselves without the assistance of security guards based on the case of Au Kean Hoe (supra)?

19. In the case of Au Kean Hoe (supra) at paragraph 26, the Federal Court stated: “We are of the view the underlying rule is a recognition that individuals live within a community and it is always balancing of the individuals’ inconvenience against the communities’ interest that is of paramount concern.”
20. It must be reiterated the issue in Au Kean Hoe’s (supra) case related to whether an inconvenience in a circumstance of case could amount to actionable nuisance. This is not the issue before this court in this judicial review. In this case, the issue was pertaining to the condition imposed by the respondent to the residents’ association. The residents’ association’s approval to operate as a guarded community, in the view of this court, is under the purview of the respondent.
21. Clause 2(f) and clause 4(d) of the Garis Panduan Komuniti Berpengawal MBPJ (Penambahbaikan 2017) allows MBPJ to prohibit the residents’ association from requiring non-paying residents and non-members from operating or opening the boom gates themselves without the assistance of security guards.
22. It was argued by learned counsel for the applicant that section 101(v) of the Local Government Act 1976 provides: “In addition to any other powers conferred upon it by this Act or by any other written law a local authority shall have power to do all or any of the following things, namely – … (v) to do all things necessary for or conducive to the public safety, health and convenience;”
23. Was the imposition of the Condition something necessary for or conducive to the public safety, health and convenience? Is the act of non- paying members of the residents’ association or non-members of the residents’ association opening the boom gate themselves something necessary for or conducive to the public safety, health and convenience? This court finds this to be in the negative. This court is not satisfied that the act of non-paying members of the residents’ association or non- members of the residents’ association opening the boom gate themselves is something necessary for or conducive to the public safety, health and convenience. (Is the Rule necessary for public safety, for health, for convenience?)
24. Is MBPJ’s decision not allowing this Rule being unreasonable or irrational? This was the same condition imposed in MBPJ’s approval in 2018. The residents’ association did not raise any issue about this condition then in 2018, nor in the 2020 approval until the dispute with the non-paying residents occurred. Au Kean Hoe’s (supra) case was decided in 2015, before the first approval of MBPJ in 2018 and the renewal of the permit by MBPJ in 2020.
25. The condition was acceptable to the residents’ association at that point of time. In the view of this court, the decision of MBPJ is not illegal, irrational or unreasonable.
26. Why then, is the residents’ association now challenging the condition by MBPJ? The same condition was previously imposed by MBPJ and the residents’ association had accepted this condition. Now, non-paying members and non-members of the residents’ association are expected to open the boom gate themselves. It appears to this court, there is a possibility the proposed condition for non-paying members of the residents’ association and non-members of the residents’ association to open the boom gate themselves may pressure non-paying members of the residents to pay for the security services. It will further encourage non- members of the residents’ association to become members of the residents’ association.

DECISION

27. For the aforementioned reasons, this court finds there is no merit to this application and hereby dismisses this application with costs of RM 2000.

Source: Chow Hau Mun (mMembawa tindakan ini dalam kapasitinya sebagai ahli yang diberikuasa di bawah Seksyen 9(c) Akta Pertubuhan 1966 bagi dan untuk Pesatuan Penduduk Parkville Jalan PJU 3/32-3/37 Sunway Damansara, Petaling Jaya Selangor) v Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya [2022] MLJU 1324. High Court Shah Alam. Shahnaz Sulaiman J.

==============================

*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务，请联系我们。

*如果您需要法律咨询(付费)，请联系我们。

*我们的律师楼拥有超过18年的执业经验。我们有处理民事纠纷(打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、劳工纠纷(工业法庭）、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟雇佣协议、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆有处理。*We have more than 18 years of experience in the legal profession. We handle matters such as civil litigation, commercial disputes, labour disputes (Industrial Court), debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreement, drafting employment contract, drafting sale and purchase agreement, process loan documentations, legal consultation, legal advisory, miscellaneous legal works.

*我们的律师楼网站拥有超过1500则法律文章，免费供民众阅读参考。欢迎填写您的资料，订阅我们的法律文章: www.kuekong.com

*Wilson Kuek律师是“法律与你同行 Law & Justice”面子书群组的创办人。“法律与你同行”是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们的平台每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage

*加入我们的Telegram:

(i) 各项法律/政府政策: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeGroup

(ii) 雇主必知的法律/政府政策: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeEmployer

*订阅我们的YouTube: http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #Klang Legal Firm #Klang Lawyer #KL Lawyer #Kuala Lumpur Lawyer #Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #Litigation Lawyer #Divorce Lawyer #reputable lawyer #trustworthy lawyer

#郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼 #巴生律师楼 #吧生律师楼 #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #民事诉讼律师 #民事案律师 #专打官司的律师 #专打官司律师 #工业法庭律师 #劳工法庭律师 #专打离婚案的律师 #专打离婚案律师 #处理离婚的律师 #处理离婚案的律师 #离婚律师 #买卖合约律师 #有经验的律师 #好律师 #专业的律师 #信得过的律师 #利害的律师 #有信誉的律师 #有声望的律师 #出名的律师 #有名的律师 #有实力的律师

#gated and guarded community #围篱社区