Back
2021 MarsdenLR 3253
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
MAJLIS DAERAH SEGAMAT – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: J-01(A)-484-07/2018]
The local authority cannot impose rates on buildings without establishing their status as State or reserved land, allowing for judicial review when proper procedure is not followed.
Headnote:(A) Local Government Act 1976 – Sections 141, 145(1), 145(2), 163 – Judicial review concerning assessment of improved value and rates levied by local authority on electricity pylons – Appellant contended that as a mere occupier without ownership of land, the rates cannot be levied – High Court dismissed application for judicial review, requiring appeal under s 145(1) and (2) – Court found this approach erroneous and stated that the Respondent did not establish the status of land to impose the rates. (Paras 11, 12, 18, 24)
Facts of the case: The Appellant, a public utility company, challenged the local authority's assessment of improved value and rates on its pylons, asserting that it is not the owner of the lands where they are situated, only holding a right of way.
Findings of Court: The court found that the learned High Court Judge erred in upholding the preliminary objection and dismissed the Judicial Review application.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the Appellant had the right to file for judicial review or should have adhered to the appeal process specified under the Local Government Act, and the correct interpretation of ownership related to the levying of rates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without establishing whether the pylons were on State or reserved land, the Respondent lacked authority to impose rates, thus allowing for judicial review.
Result: Appeal allowed and remitted to High Court.
Introduction
[1] This is the Appellant's appeal against the decision of the Learned High Court Judge dated 26 June 2018 in dismissing the Appellant's application for judicial review on a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent. By the Judicial Review application, the Appellant sought to review the Respondent's decision in respect of assessment of improved value and rates levied on the Appellant's Pylons within the Respondent's area of jurisdiction ("Pylons").
[2] We heard the appeal and had unanimously allowed the same. The case was then remitted to the High Court to be heard on merit. We now give our reasons.
The Backgrounds Facts
[3] The Appellant (Tenaga Nasional Berhad) is a public listed company which supplies electricity. The Respondent (Majlis Daerah Segamat) is a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1976 ('the Act'). The Appellant owned and operated the pylons that support high voltage transmission lines situated within the jurisdiction of the Respondent. On 24 November 2014, the Appellant received a Notice dated 13 November 2014 from the Respondent informing them that the Respondent had prepared a new valuation list of the Appellant's holdings pursuant to s 141 of the Act. Attached to the notice was a list setting out particulars and revised improved value of 211 holdings all located within the Respondent's area of jurisdiction. It listed 198 substations, 4 Main Intake Stations (Pencawang Masuk Utama [PMU]), 7 high tension transmission lines, an office building and a store building.
[4] By its letter dated 25 November 2014, the Appellant lodged its objections against the Respondent's assessment of improved value and rates levied on all the 211 holdings.
[5] On 12 October 2015, the Appellant received a notice dated 17 August 2015 from the Respondent ("the Respondent's 1st Decision") informing that the "Mesyuarat Penuh Majlis Daerah Segamat" had considered the Appellant's objections against the assessment of the improved value and rates levied on part of the Appellant's holdings and had agreed to reduce the assessment of improved value and rates levied earlier in its notice dated 13 November 2014.
[6] By its letter dated 28 October 2015, the Appellant requested the Respondent to reconsider and review the Respondent's 1st Decision in relation to the Pylons on the ground that the Appellant is not the owner of the lands where the high voltage transmission lines and Pylons are situated. Consequently, payment of rates cannot be levied under the Act on the occupier. The Appellant has only a right of way on the said lands which is acquired pursuant to s 11 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1990.
[7] The Appellant was invited by the Respondent on 20 February 2017 to hear its objections on the assessment of the improved value and rates levied by the Respondent on the Pylons together with the Appellant's objections on the assessment of improved value and rates levied on four Main Intake Stations, an office building and a store building. With regards to the Pylons, the Appellant had again reiterated at the meeting that the Appellant is not the owner of the lands where the transmission lines and Pylons are situated and therefore rates cannot be levied against the Appellant under the Act.
[8] On 23 May 2017, the Appellant received a notice dated 16 May 2017 from the Respondent stating that after considering the Appellant's objections, the "Mesyuarat Penuh Majlis Daerah Segamat" had decided to reject the objections on the ground that the Pylons are defined as "building" under the Act and therefore are subjected to assessment of improved value and payment of rates under the Act ("the Respondent's Decision").
[9] On 22 August 2017, the Appellant filed its application for leave to commence Judicial Review against the Respondent's Decision under O 53 r 3(6) of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC 2012"). Leave was granted by the High Court on 2 November 2017 to commence Judicial Review proceedings agains
