Why is the Vistana Heights Architect nonchalant?

 

Arkitek LYS became a limited company, on August 1, 2023. Under Malaysian law, this transition transforms the business into a separate legal entity, distinct from its owners or directors, granting the Sdn. Bhd. its own legal identity. According to their website (https://arkiteklys.my/), this change marked a transformation in 2023 from a Sole Proprietorship to a Body Corporate Architectural Consultancy Practice. The website frames this shift as aligning with a “vision for long-term enduring excellence,” suggesting a deliberate business strategy rather than a reaction to external pressure. This claim may be taken with a pinch of salt due to the timing. 

For my impending legal case, which centers on a professional service dispute, this change introduces variables that could affect my approach. My interactions with Arkitek LYS began well before its incorporation: I spoke with Mr. Jonathan Lee on July 22, 2022, about an issue he promised to follow up on after reviewing his files. I emailed him on August 1, 2022, and began documenting the matter on my blog starting August 25, 2022. Later, I lodged a complaint with Lembaga Arkitek Malaysia (LAM), which Ar. Lee Yik Soon responded to on March 21, 2023. These events—all occurring in 2022 and early 2023—predate the incorporation, suggesting my dispute stems from when Arkitek LYS was still a sole proprietorship.

Given this timeline, any claims tied to negligence or obligations from 2022 would likely target the entity or individual(s) operating Arkitek LYS at that time, potentially leaving Mr. Lee Yik Soon personally liable. The incorporation on August 1, 2023, doesn’t automatically erase pre-existing liabilities unless those were explicitly transferred to the new company through a formal agreement—and only if I consented to such a shift, which I did not. Pre-incorporation claims would thus focus on the original owner(s), not the Sdn. Bhd., unless evidence shows the incorporation was a deliberate attempt to evade responsibility. Courts can “pierce the corporate veil” to hold individuals accountable in cases of bad faith, but this requires proof of intent, which the incorporation alone doesn’t suggest.

Could my actions—blog posts, emails, or the LAM complaint—have influenced their decision to incorporate? It’s possible but not definitive. My blog posts, starting August 25, 2022, a full year before the incorporation, might have raised concerns or criticism that indirectly factored into their planning. Companies often incorporate for practical reasons—tax benefits, growth, or credibility—unrelated to legal disputes. A site visit by Lembaga Juruukur Sabah on June 28, 2023, to conduct a survey might also have played a role in their timing, though this remains speculative without evidence. Their website’s emphasis on “excellence” and the structural changes reinforce a narrative of proactive strategy over defensive maneuvering.

The incorporation doesn’t inherently dismiss or weaken my claim; it simply adjusts the legal framework for responsibility and recovery. For events in 2022, courts will likely focus on the state of affairs at the time of the dispute, not subsequent restructurings. My blog posts and emails might strengthen my claim by demonstrating notice or intent.

Ultimately, the shift to a limited company, complete with new directors, seems structural rather than an escape from liability, unless I can prove otherwise. I need to consult a lawyer with the specifics of my case to determine how this affects my strategy or prospects. Regardless, I believe I have a strong case against the developer, the architect, and other involved professionals.

Note: I have commenced my research for the legal action to be taken. I am noting all these here for comments, suggestions, and help from legal-minded friends.

One question that has just arisen after this research is why LAM is slow in taking action.