KUALA LUMPUR – The Federal Court has granted leave for a house owner and his tenant to appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal (CoA), which ruled that the guarded neighbourhood scheme in Bangsar Park was legal.
The appellants – property owner Ranjan Paramalingam and tenant Jude Micory Lobijin – are bringing up four questions of law at the apex court hearing, which is fixed on May 9.
Firstly, both are seeking a declaration on whether gated and guarded community schemes operated by residents’ associations (RAs) over public areas, including roads and facilities, without positive legal provisions permitting such schemes, are illegal and unconstitutional, in light of the Federal Court decision two years ago in the home minister & Ors vs Penang government suit.
Apparently, the appellants are also seeking a ruling on whether RAs and their agents are forbidden by personal data law and identity card legislation from collecting personal data of those entering public roads and areas covered by their gated and guarded schemes.
For the two questions above, Ranjan and Jude are seeking a positive answer from the Federal Court.
Thirdly, the duo are also asking if an RA can rely on a defence of lawful authority to defeat a plaintiff’s claim against it in, inter alia, nuisance and breach of personal data laws when “approvals” by a local authority have lapsed and/or been refused.
The fourth question the appellants are asking is on the situation when a plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of his action against the defendants: is it necessary for the plaintiff to also appeal against the dismissal of the third-party proceedings between the defendant and third party in that action, when the plaintiff has not sought any relief against the said third party?
The answer sought by the applicants to both the third and fourth questions is “no”.
In its written judgement dated January 10, the Court of Appeal had ruled that the appellants had failed to prove that the Bangsar Park Residents Association (BPRA) committed private and public nuisance by organising the guarded neighbourhood since January 2017.
The appellate court also ruled that the two plaintiffs had failed to prove that BPRA had breached the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 while operating the scheme’s security arrangements.
Ranjan and Jude had sued BPRA over the guarded neighbourhood scheme which started in 2017.
BPRA had brought in Kuala Lumpur City Hall and the KL mayor as third parties in the suit.
In another related development, the CoA had allowed Ranjan and his tenant to be the intervenor in the Kuala Lumpur High Court hearing, which will be held on June 19.
The hearing pertains to the BPRA’s objection to the mayor’s decision not to grant further approval to the association’s gated and guarded schemes since March 11, 2020. – The Vibes, March 25, 2023
