Back
2021 MarsdenLR 1972
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
MY SEVEN VACATION SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: A-02(IM)(NVCV)-488-03/2019 & A-02(IM)(NCVC)-521-03/2019]
Statutory authority to disconnect electricity must be construed within the legislative intent ensuring protection against wrongful disconnection, especially after corrective actions to tampered meters.
Headnote:(A) Electricity Supply Act 1990 – Section 38 – Interim injunctions against disconnection of electricity supply – Appellant, as sole electricity provider, issued notices of disconnection after discovering tampering of meters – Respondents sought to prevent disconnection, claiming no tampering occurred – Court satisfied with respondents' arguments for injunctions, favoring status quo pending trial – Considered statutory powers of the appellant and relevant case law on electricity law principles. (Paras 24-36)
Facts of the case: The appellant issued two notices of disconnection of electricity supply due to alleged meter tampering at the respondents' business premises, leading to appeals against the injunctions granted to the respondents to prevent disconnection.
Findings of Court: The High Court properly exercised its discretion in favoring the respondents' applications for interim injunctions to maintain the status quo pending trial, noting the revised legislative context under the Act after amendments came into force.
Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents satisfied the requirements for interim injunctions and the correct application of the statute as interpreted in relevant case law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the High Court's decision by emphasizing that the statutory interpretations, especially following legislative amendments, necessitate a serious examination of the disconnection's legality in light of public interest and fairness.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] There are two appeals before us, namely Rayuan Sivil No: A-02(IM) (NVCV)-488-03/2019 ("Appeal 488") and Rayuan Sivil No: A-02(IM) (NCVC)-521-03/2019 ("Appeal 521") filed by the appellant/defendant ("the appellant") against two separate injunction orders granted in different suits to the respondents/plaintiffs ("the respondents") to prevent the appellant from disconnecting the supply of electricity to the respondents' premises. Both orders were granted by the same Learned Judicial Commissioner at the Ipoh High Court.
[2] We heard the appeals together as the issues are identical. After perusing the appeal records, considering the submissions, both oral and written, we dismissed both appeals with costs in the cause. We now give our reasons for the same.
Background Facts
Appeal 488
[3] The appellant in the suit is the sole provider of electricity in Peninsular Malaysia and is a licensee under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('the Act') with statutory powers to take action for offences committed under the Act, in particular for the tampering of the appellant's meters and the theft or pilferage of electricity.
[4] For appeal 488, both the 1st and 2nd respondents are the appellant's registered customers for electricity supply to their respective premises. Both the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent are operators of a restaurant business with common directors. The 1st respondent carried out its business at No 42 Lorong Cheah Cheng Lim, 30350, Ipoh Perak ("premise 1"), and the 2nd respondent at No 42A Lorong Cheah Cheng Lim, 30350, Ipoh Perak ("premise 2"). Premise 1 is adjacent to premise 2 (collectively referred to as "the Premises").
[5] During an inspection on 11 August 2016, the appellant's employees discovered the tempering of meters at the Premises. The appellant then issued a Notice of Disconnection of Electricity Supply ("NDES") on 11 August 2016 (on the same day of the inspection), notifying the respondents that the electricity supply to the Premises would be disconnected under s 38(1) of the Act (both NDES to the Premises are collectively referred to as "NDES 1").
[6] In NDES 1, the respondents were duly informed of the intended disconnection of electricity to the Premises on 8 September 2016.
[7] It was not a matter of dispute that the meters had been rectified with no outstanding electricity bills for the Premises since that inspection on 11 August 2016.
[8] On 5 September 2016, the respondents filed a writ against the appellant for the following reliefs, among others:
(i) for a declaration that the respondents did not tamper with the meters;
(ii) the respondents do not owe any monies to the appellant resulting from the 11 August 2016 inspection; and
(iii) that the NDES 1 dated 11 August 2016 to be declared null and void.
[9] On 6 September 2016, the respondents filed an ex-parte application for an interim injunction against the appellant from carrying out the disconnection as stipulated in NDES 1 until the final disposal of the action. The High Court granted the ex parte interim injunction on 7 September 2016. The appellant's applications to set aside the ex-parte interim injunction and inter-partes application to set aside the said injunction were dismissed by the High Court.
[10] Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal to this Court against the decision. On 31 October 2017, this Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the said High Court's decision.
[11] Following the decision of this Court, on 3 August 2018, the appellant issued the 2nd NDES ("NDES 2" RR VOL.2B (part C) Enc 4 pdf page 1819/hardcopy at pp 215-222).
[12] The respondents subsequently filed another application in encl 69 for an interim injunction to restrain the appellant from carrying out the intent of NDES 2. The High Court again allowed the injunction, hence this appeal before us.
Appeal 521
[13] The 2nd respondent is a company carrying out the business of processing, freezing and cold storage of seafood at No 1541, Lo
