Back
2022 MarsdenLR 729
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
TAN SOOI LEK @ TAN CHOON GUAN & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 02(i)-53-09-2021(P)]
Public utility providers can seek civil injunctive relief to uphold statutory powers, regardless of prior completion of maintenance works, reflecting a duty towards public interest.
Headnote:(A) Electricity Supply Act 1990 – Section 13 and sub-sections 37(12)(a) and (b) – Appeal regarding public utilities provider's right to seek civil injunctive relief for maintenance on private land after work completion – High Court deemed subsequent hearing academic, leading to appeal. (Paras 1, 6, 32)
(B)
Legal principle established that public utilities may seek injunctions in aid of statutory powers – Statutory rights prevail in public interest context, irrespective of criminal sanctions availability. (Paras 19, 31)
(C)
Continuous statutory duty of TNB necessitates maintenance actions within rentice area despite previously completed works; equitable relief may not be precluded by prior completion of maintenance actions. (Paras 11, 20)
Facts of the case:
TNB sought to maintain vegetation-free access to transmission towers but faced refusals from landowners. TNB completed maintenance but could not remove unauthorized vegetation. The High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed TNB's injunction application as academic post-maintenance.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, recognizing the necessity for judicial determination despite completed works, emphasizing public safety and ongoing responsibilities under the Electricity Supply Act.
Issues
: Whether TNB's application for injunctions is academic given completed works; Necessity of civil relief despite criminal provisions.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court ruled that statutory powers to perform public duties allow various legal avenues including civil injunctions, highlighting a public interest imperative that legitimatized TNB's claims and need for court consideration.
Result:
Appeal allowed; matter remitted for inter partes hearing.
| Date | Event | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Date of statutory grant or relevant law enactment | Establishment of the statutory powers granted to public utilities for land entry and maintenance | (!) |
| Date of the alleged unlawful interference or breach | The landowner or affected party alleges unlawful interference with property rights | (!) |
| Date of court proceedings | Initiation of legal proceedings for injunction or related relief | (!) (!) |
| Date of issuance of interim ex parte order | Court grants provisional injunction without notice to the opposing party | (!) |
| Date of the utility completing the works | The utility completes the maintenance or upgrade works on the land | (!) |
| Date of inter partes hearing | The court reviews the case with both parties present | (!) (!) |
| Date of final court decision | Court issues ruling, either upholding or modifying the injunction | (!) (!) |
Please note: Specific dates are not provided here; insert actual dates relevant to your case accordingly.
Introduction
[1] This appeal concerns Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) a licensee under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ( ESA 1990). It is about TNB's statutory power as a public utilities provider to enter upon any land in order to carry out maintenance, repair and upgrading works on its installations. TNB obtained an interim injunction on an ex parte application to direct the landowners to allow TNB to enter upon their land to carry out maintenance and upgrading works. TNB's application came up for inter partes hearing after the said works were completed by TNB. The High Court dismissed TNB's application at the inter partes hearing on the ground that it was academic because the works had been completed. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court. TNB obtained leave to appeal to the Federal Court on two questions of law which relates to whether TNB may resort to civil injunctive relief in the courts in aid of, or as a back-up or in addition to, the statutory powers under the 1990. The salient facts leading up to this appeal are as follows.
Background Facts
[2] TNB wanted to upgrade two wooden transmission towers located on the 1st and 2nd respondents' land. Pursuant thereto, TNB gave the relevant statutory notice to the 1st and 2nd respondents of its intention to enter upon the land for that purpose. However, the 1st and 2nd respondents refused TNB access to the two transmission towers on their land. It transpired that the 1st and 2nd respondents had rented part of their land to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent was carrying out vegetable cultivation on the rentice area (ie, the tract of land reserved for the use of TNB for access to and for maintenance of the transmission line and running below and along the length of the transmission lines). The vegetable cultivation was located in part of the rentice area of the towers, right below the high voltage cables. There were also wooden poles to support the vegetation as well as zinc fencing.
[3] Consequently, TNB filed a writ action in the High Court for mandatory injunctions to compel the respondents to allow TNB to enter upon the land and to remove all plantations, equipment and structures from the rentice area, and a prohibitory injunction to prohibit the respondents from carrying out any activities on the rentice area.
[4] In the interim, TNB filed an application (vide Enclosure 4) in the High Court for interim injunctive relief. The application was heard ex parte and TNB obtained an interim mandatory injunction order directing the respondents to allow TNB to enter upon the land to carry out the necessary works and an ad-interim prohibition injunction prohibiting the respondents from carrying out any activities within the rentice area on the land. Meanwhile, the High Court also fixed a date for the inter partes hearing of Enclosure 4.
[5] Relying on the interim order, TNB's representatives attempted to enter the land to carry out works but were again denied entry to the land. A police report was then lodged by TNB after which TNB's workers were eventually allowed entry on the land. Although the necessary works were then carried out, TNB was, however, not allowed to remove the vegetation cultivation, equipment, or related structures in the rentice area.
[6] At the subsequent inter partes hearing of Enclosure 4, the High Court dismissed Enclosure 4 primarily on the ground that the application was academic as the works required had already been carried out. TNB's appeal against the High Court decision was unsuccessful. TNB's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed as the Court of Appeal agreed that the inter partes hearing of Enclosure 4 was academic and that sub-s 37(12)(a) and (b) ESA 1990 were sufficient to meet the objective of the injunctions sought and the public interest need.
Two Questions Of Law
[7] TNB was given leave to appeal to the Federal Court on two questions of law pursuant to s 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA 1964)
