Nuisance, Access & Defects: A Practical Guide to Developer–Resident Conflicts in Malaysia
Introduction: Development Disputes Are Becoming More Common — and More Complex
Malaysia’s property landscape is rapidly evolving. As housing schemes expand, mixed developments proliferate, and strata communities mature, disputes between developers, Residents Associations (RAs), Joint Management Bodies (JMBs), Management Corporations (MCs), and individual owners are becoming increasingly frequent.
Common disputes now include:
- denial of access to contractors
- complaints on defects and late repairs
- obstruction of development works
- disagreements about security control
- interference with utilities, roads, and common areas
- nuisance claims against developers
- nuisance counterclaims against residents
- arguments about locus standi (legal standing)
These issues often escalate because many stakeholders do not fully understand their rights, obligations, or limitations under the law.
A recent High Court case — OIB Properties (C) Sdn Bhd v Persatuan Penduduk Taman Myra Meranti [2025] CLJU 1390 — offers one of the clearest, most practical judicial explanations of private nuisance, developer rights, residents’ rights, road ownership, and locus standi in Malaysia.
This judgment demonstrates why having a capable litigation team can directly change the outcome of a conflict.
As a litigation-focused Malaysian law firm, we help developers, RAs/JMBs/MCs, and property owners navigate exactly these types of disputes — and win.
A Landmark Decision Developers & Property Managers Need to Know
In the 2025 High Court case, the Plaintiff developer sued the Defendant Residents Association (RA) because the RA:
- blocked contractors from entering the development to perform HDD drilling works
- obstructed cabling works for TNB
- filed complaints to authorities, causing revocation of TNB approvals
- repeatedly restricted access to roads owned by the developer
- ultimately delayed the project unnecessarily
The court found that:
The RA’s actions amounted to private nuisance and unlawfully interfered with the developer’s use of its land.
– High Court, 12 June 2025 [2025] CLJU 1390
This decision has major implications for:
- developers
- strata managers
- RAs/JMBs/MCs
- lawyers advising these parties
Our firm’s litigation approach aligns closely with the reasoning applied by the Court, making this case an excellent illustration of the type of success we regularly pursue for our clients.
What Happened in the Case — Explained Clearly
1. Developer Still Owned the Roads
Although owners in Phase 1 and 2 had received vacant possession, the internal roads were not yet surrendered to the local council.
Therefore:
The roads remained legally and beneficially owned by the developer.
– High Court Finding [2025] CLJU 1390
This fact is crucial for many similar disputes. RAs/JMBs/MCs often misunderstand road ownership, leading to unlawful obstruction of access.
2. The RA Blocked HDD Works Despite TNB Approval
The Plaintiff developer:
- obtained TNB’s Kebenaran Mula Kerja
- duly notified the RA
- arranged HDD works (a less disruptive method)
- attempted multiple engagements via email
Instead of cooperating, the RA:
- stopped contractors at the guardhouse
- emailed TNB alleging danger
- caused TNB to cancel approvals
- continued interfering even after giving an undertaking
The court held these actions were unreasonable and unlawful.
3. The Court Rejected RA’s Excuses
The RA offered 3 main reasons for blocking entry:
(a) Defects in the Units
The Court held these were unrelated and had other proper legal channels.
The RA cannot hold the developer “to ransom” over defects issues.
– High Court [2025] CLJU 1390
(b) Inconvenience Caused by HDD Works
The Court ruled that the works were necessary and minimally intrusive.
Mere inconvenience is not a nuisance.
– referencing Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’Villa Equestrian
(c) Safety Concerns
The Court found no evidence supporting any safety risks.
No structural damage, no injuries, and no factual basis for a safety hazard.
– High Court [2025] CLJU 1390
4. Private Nuisance Was Established Against the RA
The Court reminded that nuisance includes any unreasonable interference with lawful property use.
Here, the developer had the right to access its own road.
The RA interfered without justification.
Thus:
The RA committed actionable private nuisance.
– High Court [2025] CLJU 1390
5. Developer’s Damages Claim Was Not Fully Proven
The developer claimed extensive damages (LADs, variation orders, premix price increases, overheads). However, the Court held that:
- special damages must be strictly proven
- documentation was insufficient
- causal link to the RA’s 45-day obstruction was not clearly established
Thus, the Court awarded:
RM10,000 nominal damages for the nuisance.
RM30,000 costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
– High Court [2025] CLJU 1390
6. The RA’s Counterclaim Was Dismissed
The RA counter-sued for nuisance but:
- filed under the RA’s name, not individual residents
- did not prove any disturbance or loss of enjoyment
- called no residents to testify
- failed to show damage, pollution, or unreasonable obstruction
Therefore:
The RA had no locus standi and no evidence. Counterclaim dismissed.
– High Court [2025] CLJU 1390
Why This Case Matters — And Why Our Firm Is Strategically Positioned to Help
This judgment is extremely important because it clarifies the law on:
- private nuisance in developments
- rights of developers vs RAs/JMBs/MCs
- temporary ownership of roads prior to surrender
- reasonableness and interference standards
- limits of RA authority
- locus standi and who can sue for nuisance
- special damages and evidential burden
These are exactly the types of disputes our legal firm handles regularly — with a proven track record.
⭐ How Our Legal Firm Helps Developers Win Nuisance, Obstruction & Access Disputes
Developers face increasing pushback from RAs/JMBs/MCs, often due to misunderstanding or misinformation.
We help developers:
✔ regain access to sites
✔ obtain injunctions quickly when needed
✔ defend against unreasonable obstruction
✔ enforce contractual rights
✔ deal with residents’ complaints properly
✔ respond to allegations made to authorities
✔ negotiate settlements to avoid escalation
✔ conduct delay analysis and damages quantification
✔ represent them in High Court litigation
Our firm is familiar with the Court’s reasoning in cases like this and adopts strategies that align with winning arguments:
- ownership rights
- statutory duties
- contractual timelines
- evidence-based delay claims
- limiting RA/JMB/MC authority
- applying legal tests for nuisance
We help clients avoid weak, speculative or unproven damages claims — a mistake highlighted in the judgment.
⭐ How We Help Residents, RAs, JMBs & MCs Protect Their Rights the Right Way
RAs, JMBs, and MCs often want to protect their residents — and many do so with good intentions. But the law imposes limits on their authority.
We help RAs/JMBs/MCs by:
✔ advising on lawful decision-making
✔ preventing illegal obstruction of roads, utilities, and contractors
✔ addressing defects issues through proper channels
✔ drafting resolutions, notices, and correspondences
✔ negotiating with developers
✔ representing them in disputes
✔ ensuring residents’ rights are not compromised
✔ filing nuisance claims correctly when justified
✔ ensuring locus standi issues are avoided
✔ obtaining expert evidence if damage is alleged
We help RAs argue effectively without exposing themselves to legal liability — like what happened in this case.
⭐ How We Assist Individual Property Owners
For homeowners facing:
- construction nuisance
- damage to property
- unsafe works
- unreasonable developer conduct
- utilities disruptions
- defects disputes
- noise, fumes, obstruction
- management issues
We help owners take proper legal steps under contract, tort, and statutory law (Housing Development Act, Strata Management Act, Contracts Act, Torts).
We ensure:
- documentation is strong
- evidence is properly gathered
- losses are quantifiable
- claims are filed with correct parties
- developers cannot escape responsibility
- settlement negotiations are fair
Key Legal Lessons from This Case (And How We Apply Them for You)
1. “Inconvenience” Alone Is Not Nuisance
Clients must show unreasonable interference, not mere annoyance.
2. RAs/JMBs Cannot Block Developers Without Legal Basis
Ownership of roads and common areas prior to handover remains critical.
3. Defects Are Not a Bargaining Chip
They must be addressed through contractual or statutory processes.
4. Safety Allegations Must Be Proven
Unsupported claims can backfire.
5. Documentary Proof of Damages Is Essential
We prepare proper delay analysis and financial documentation.
6. Locus Standi Is Not a Technicality — It Is Fatal
Only persons with a direct interest may sue for nuisance.
7. Courts Expect Professional Pleadings
Poorly drafted pleadings get rejected; strategic ambiguity is discouraged.
Our firm prioritises clear, precise, well-structured pleadings — as highlighted by the Court’s criticism of confusing pleadings in this case.
Why Choose Our Litigation-Focused Malaysian Law Firm
✔ We Act for Developers, Residents, JMBs, MCs & Owners
Our broad exposure means we understand all sides — and know exactly how to out-strategise opponents.
✔ Proven Experience in Tort, Land, Strata & Property Litigation
We have handled nuisance claims, injunctions, trespass, obstruction, and development disputes across Malaysia.
✔ Skilled Negotiators & Courtroom Litigators
We secure injunctions, negotiate settlements, and win trials.
✔ Strong Understanding of Construction, TNB, Local Council & Development Processes
We collaborate effectively with engineers, contractors, architects, and consultants.
✔ Clear, Compliant Pleadings & Evidence Preparation
We prepare cases meticulously to avoid the evidential weaknesses illustrated in the judgment.
✔ Strategic Advice To Prevent Escalation
We help clients resolve disputes early — cost-efficiently and effectively.
SEO-Focused Section: Frequently Searched Questions About Development & Nuisance Disputes in Malaysia
Can an RA or JMB legally block a developer from entering a residential area?
Generally, no — especially if the developer still legally owns the roads.
The High Court case makes this clear. CLJU_2025_1390_BC06157
Can residents sue for nuisance caused by construction works?
Yes — if there is real, unreasonable interference and the right party is sued.
Is mere inconvenience considered nuisance under Malaysian law?
No. The court explicitly held that inconvenience alone is insufficient.
What evidence is needed to prove damages in nuisance?
Strict proof: invoices, delay analysis, receipts, expert reports, photos.
Can RAs/JMBs file a nuisance claim on behalf of residents?
Not unless they sue in proper representative capacity and ensure residents testify.
Otherwise, they fail for lack of locus standi.
Conclusion: Development & Nuisance Disputes Require Experienced Litigators — And We Are Ready to Help
The High Court’s 2025 decision offers important guidance for developers, RAs, JMBs, MCs, and homeowners alike. Disputes over access, utilities, defects, obstruction, and nuisance are increasingly common — and the legal landscape is often misunderstood.
Our legal firm is uniquely positioned to:
- assess your rights
- advise on strategy
- draft strong pleadings
- gather evidence effectively
- negotiate favourable resolutions
- litigate aggressively when necessary
Whether you are a developer, property owner, RA, JMB, MC, or resident, we help you navigate disputes with confidence — and win.
To consult our team or discuss your dispute confidentially, contact us anytime.
Contact JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors to make an appointment today!
🌐 Call us: +6017.6965.966 (Call / WhatsApp)
📩 Email Us: nick@jykolaw.com
Or fill in the contact form CLICK HERE
Disclaimer: The above proposition is subject to actual facts and circumstances and shall never be referred as the actual law without seeking legal advice. Consult us for more information!