Can a Strata Management Tribunal Decision Be Challenged?

In the previous articles, we discussed what happens after the Strata Management Tribunal gives an award and how the award may be enforced.

Another important question is whether a Tribunal decision can be challenged.

This question usually arises when one party is dissatisfied with the award given. For example, an owner may disagree with the amount of arrears ordered to be paid. A management body may be dissatisfied if its claim is dismissed or only partially allowed.

In such a situation, it is important to understand that a Tribunal award cannot be challenged casually.

The Strata Management Tribunal is not merely a discussion forum. An award given by the Tribunal has legal effect. Therefore, a dissatisfied party must use the correct legal channel.

This article provides a simple explanation of whether a Tribunal decision can be challenged, the difference between an ordinary appeal and judicial review, and why parties must take Tribunal proceedings seriously from the beginning.

1. A Tribunal Award Is Final and Binding

The important starting point is section 120 of the Strata Management Act 2013.

In general, section 120 provides that a Tribunal award is final and binding on the parties to the proceedings.

This means that the parties involved in the Tribunal claim must comply with the award given.

A Tribunal award is not merely a recommendation, advice or administrative opinion. It is a decision with legal effect.

Therefore, if the Tribunal directs a party to pay a certain amount, do a certain act, stop doing a certain act or comply with a particular direction, that party must take the award seriously.

2. There Is No Ordinary Appeal Against a Tribunal Award

One important point to understand is that there is no ordinary appeal against a Tribunal award in the same way as an appeal from the Sessions Court to the High Court or from the High Court to the Court of Appeal.

In ordinary court proceedings, a dissatisfied party may generally appeal to a higher court, subject to the applicable law and procedure.

However, the position is different for an award of the Strata Management Tribunal.

The losing party cannot assume that there is an automatic right to rehear the entire case simply because they are dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision.

This is consistent with the purpose of the Tribunal as a faster, simpler and more practical forum for resolving strata disputes.

If every award could be appealed like a full rehearing, the purpose of the Tribunal as a more efficient dispute resolution mechanism would be undermined.

3. What Is the Proper Channel If a Party Is Dissatisfied?

If a party is dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision, the usual channel to consider is judicial review in the High Court.

Judicial review is not an ordinary appeal.

It is not an opportunity to rehear the entire case from the beginning.

It is also not an opportunity to repeat the same arguments merely because the party is unhappy with the Tribunal’s decision.

Judicial review is a process where the High Court reviews whether the Tribunal’s decision was made according to law, jurisdiction and proper procedure.

The focus is not merely on who should have won based on the facts, but whether the decision-making process was legally valid.

4. What Is Judicial Review?

Judicial review is a proceeding in the High Court to challenge a decision of a public body, tribunal or authority exercising public functions.

In the context of the Strata Management Tribunal, judicial review may be used to challenge an award if there are valid legal grounds.

The High Court will not necessarily replace the Tribunal’s view with its own simply because one party is dissatisfied.

Instead, the Court will consider whether there are issues such as:

a. the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction;

b. the Tribunal failed to comply with basic procedure;

c. there was a breach of natural justice;

d. there was a serious error of law;

e. the decision was legally unreasonable; or

f. there was a procedural defect affecting the validity of the decision.

In other words, judicial review concerns the legality of the decision, not merely a reassessment of the facts as in an ordinary appeal.

5. Judicial Review Is Not a Rehearing

Many parties misunderstand judicial review and treat it as a second chance to present their case again.

That is not correct.

In judicial review, the High Court will generally not rehear all witnesses, reassess all documents as if conducting a full trial, or remake the decision merely because one party disagrees with the Tribunal’s assessment.

If the Tribunal heard the parties, considered the documents, assessed the facts and made a decision within its jurisdiction, the court will generally be cautious before intervening.

Therefore, a party intending to challenge an award must show more than dissatisfaction.

They must show legal grounds that may justify the High Court’s intervention.

6. Examples of Grounds That May Be Relevant

Examples of grounds that may be relevant for judicial review include:

a. the Tribunal decided a matter outside its jurisdiction;

b. the Tribunal granted a remedy not allowed by law;

c. a party was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard;

d. important documents were not considered due to a serious process failure;

e. the Tribunal misdirected itself on a material question of law;

f. the decision was based on irrelevant considerations;

g. the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations;

h. there was a breach of natural justice; or

i. there was a serious procedural defect.

However, every ground must be assessed based on the facts and documents.

It is not enough to merely say that the Tribunal was wrong. The party challenging the award must show how the error occurred and why it affects the validity of the award.

7. Examples of Grounds That Are Usually Weak

On the other hand, some reasons are usually weak if they stand alone.

For example:

a. “I am unhappy with the decision”;

b. “The Tribunal believed the other side more”;

c. “I think the amount is too high”;

d. “I did not have time to prepare”, without strong supporting evidence;

e. “I did not know the procedure”;

f. “I disagree with how the Tribunal assessed the facts”; or

g. “I want a second chance to argue the case.”

Such reasons may not be sufficient if there is no issue of jurisdiction, error of law, procedural breach or serious unfairness.

Judicial review is not a mechanism to reopen the case merely because one party is unhappy with the final decision.

8. Time to Challenge the Decision Is Important

A party intending to challenge a Tribunal decision cannot wait too long.

Judicial review has procedures and time limits that must be complied with.

If the dissatisfied party only acts after the successful party begins enforcement, the position may become more difficult.

Therefore, if a party genuinely intends to challenge a Tribunal award, early steps should be taken immediately.

The party should obtain advice, review the award, identify the grounds of challenge and assess whether judicial review is suitable based on the facts of the case.

Delay may affect the chances of challenging the award.

9. What Should Be Checked Before Challenging an Award?

Before challenging a Tribunal award, the dissatisfied party should check several important matters.

These include:

a. the date of the award;

b. the full contents of the award;

c. the reasons for the decision, if any;

d. the original claim filed;

e. the response or defence filed;

f. documents submitted at the Tribunal;

g. notes or records of the proceedings;

h. whether the party was given an opportunity to be heard;

i. whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction;

j. whether the remedy granted was allowed; and

k. whether there was any serious legal or procedural defect.

This review is important because a challenge against an award must be built on clear legal grounds, not mere dissatisfaction.

10. What Should a Party Do If Dissatisfied With an Award?

If a party is dissatisfied with an award, they should not ignore it.

Better steps include:

a. obtaining a complete copy of the award;

b. reading the award carefully;

c. identifying what the Tribunal has directed;

d. checking the compliance period;

e. gathering all Tribunal documents;

f. obtaining legal advice promptly;

g. checking whether there are grounds for judicial review;

h. taking action within the appropriate time; and

i. avoiding unreasonable delay.

If there are no strong legal grounds to challenge the award, the party should consider complying with the award to avoid further action or enforcement.

11. What Should a JMB or MC Do If an Owner Wants to Challenge the Award?

If an owner states an intention to challenge the award, the JMB or MC should not panic.

The management body should:

a. keep a copy of the award;

b. keep all claim documents;

c. keep proof of service of documents;

d. keep records of the Tribunal proceedings;

e. check whether the award has been complied with;

f. obtain advice if it receives a lawyer’s letter or court documents;

g. avoid conduct inconsistent with the award; and

h. continue lawful steps based on advice.

If there is no court order staying the award, the management body should obtain advice on whether the award can or should still be enforced while the challenge is being considered.

Each case must be assessed based on its documents and circumstances.

12. Does Challenging an Award Automatically Stay Enforcement?

Not necessarily.

Filing or stating an intention to challenge an award does not necessarily stay enforcement of the award automatically.

If the losing party wants to stop or delay enforcement, they may need to obtain a stay order or another suitable order from the court, depending on the circumstances.

Therefore, the losing party cannot simply say “I want to challenge it” and assume that the award no longer needs to be complied with.

At the same time, the successful party should also be careful if court proceedings are ongoing or if there is an application for a stay.

Legal advice should be obtained so that follow-up action does not create procedural complications.

13. Why Tribunal Proceedings Must Be Taken Seriously From the Beginning

This article shows one important point: Tribunal proceedings should not be taken lightly.

Because a Tribunal award is final and binding, and because there is no ordinary appeal, parties must prepare their cases properly from the beginning.

This means:

a. the claim must be filed clearly;

b. the response must be prepared carefully;

c. supporting documents must be complete;

d. witnesses or representatives must understand the issues;

e. the claim amount must be checked;

f. account records must be properly maintained; and

g. submissions must focus on relevant issues.

Do not assume that the case can easily be corrected after the award is given.

If the case is not properly prepared at the Tribunal, the opportunity to correct it later may be limited.

14. Conclusion

A decision of the Strata Management Tribunal can be challenged, but not through an ordinary appeal.

Generally, a Tribunal award is final and binding under section 120 of the Strata Management Act 2013.

If a party is dissatisfied, the usual channel to be considered is judicial review in the High Court, subject to the applicable legal grounds, facts, documents and procedure.

Judicial review is not a second chance to rehear the entire case. It is a process to review the legality of the decision, including issues of jurisdiction, procedure, natural justice and serious errors of law.

Therefore, parties involved in Tribunal proceedings must take the process seriously from the beginning.

In strata management, a Tribunal award is not only about who wins and who loses. It is also about whether the process was lawful, whether the decision is binding, and whether follow-up action is taken through the correct legal channel.

Prepared by:
Khairul Shahrizan bin Hamizi
Advocate and Solicitor
High Court of Malaya

Brief Note

This article is prepared for general information only and should not be treated as specific legal advice. Each issue concerning a challenge against a Strata Management Tribunal award, judicial review, stay of enforcement or compliance with an award must be assessed based on the facts, documents, award, time period, court procedure and applicable laws.