2010 MarsdenLR 2789

ABDUL MALIK ISHAK, KN SEGARA, ABDUL WAHAB PATAIL
ISMAIL ABDULLAH – Appellant
Versus
TENAGA NASIONAL BHD – Respondent

The determination of compensation by the State Authority under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 is final and cannot be challenged in court if it complies with statutory requirements.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Sections 11 and 16 - Summary judgment application - The appellant sought to recover compensation for land affected by wayleave proceedings - The respondent's appeal against summary judgment was sustained by the High Court but reversed by the Court of Appeal on the basis that the State Authority's decision regarding compensation is final and unchallengeable. (Paras 22, 36, 56, 77)

(B) Summary Judgment - The defendant must establish that there is a triable issue for summary judgment to be denied, and if the law is clear, courts may grant summary judgment without proceeding to trial. (Paras 12, 16, 70)

Facts of the case:
The appellant contested compensation awarded by the DLA for land required for electricity supply lines. The State Authority awarded a higher compensation which the respondent refused to pay. The appellant's application for summary judgment initially succeeded but was later appealed against.

Findings of Court:
The Court of Appeal held that the State Authority's compensation decision was final and that the respondent failed to provide evidence binding the court to dismiss the summary judgment.

Issues: Whether the MMK's compensation determination was final and if the learned JC erroneously assessed the MMK’s decision as excessive.

Ratio Decidendi: The finality of the MMK's decisions under s. 16(2) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 was emphasized; the court found no triable issue or grounds justifying a trial and that the learned JC erred by reviewing the MMK’s decision.

Result: Appeal allowed.