SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 3021

HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
ICE MAN SDN BHD – Respondent
[Suit No: JA-22NCVC-38-03/2018]



Petitioner Advocates:Izatunlina Jamaludin,Anis Natasha Ahmad Ridwan ,Respondent Advocate: Y Y Lim

The claimant failed to establish loss of revenue due to meter tampering, resulting in the dismissal of the case, governed by principles of limitation and burden of proof.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Sections 37 and 38 - Claim for loss of revenue due to tampering with meter installation dismissed - Plaintiff failed to prove actual loss of revenue and was time-barred under Limitation Act 1953 - Claim based on alleged breaches of contract and tort - Plaintiff's action characterized as abuse of court process and subject to res judicata. (Paras 1-4, 17-20, 60-127)

(B) Burden of Proof - Plaintiff bears burden to prove both liability and quantum of loss in claims for revenue loss. (Paras 72-75, 84-85)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff alleged loss of RM2,346,906.87 due to meter tampering discovered on 21 March 2012. The Plaintiff performed inspections but failed to conclusively prove the tampering or the related loss of revenue. The Defendant denied knowledge of any tampering and claimed the Plaintiff's actions were time-barred.

Findings of Court:
The Plaintiff's claim was dismissed, finding insufficient evidence to substantiate loss, and a ruling that claims were time-barred and subject to laches and res judicata.

Issues: Whether meter installation was tampered with, whether the Plaintiff sufficiently proved financial loss, and the implications of res judicata.

Ratio Decidendi: The Plaintiff failed to prove loss of revenue on balance of probabilities; claims dismissed due to being time-barred under Section 6 of the Limitation Act; action categorized as an abuse of court process.

Result: Plaintiff's claim dismissed, with costs awarded to the Defendant.

Table of Content
1. claim filed for loss of revenue. (Para 1 , 5 , 6)
2. court decisions and appeals noted. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. details of meter tampering. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. plaintiff's loss and defendant's defenses. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. issues to be determined. (Para 17 , 18)
6. witness testimonies on inspection. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. evidence of tampering found. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
8. details of tampering mechanisms. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
9. expert testimony assessed. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
10. challenges to plaintiff's evidence. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
11. defense arguments on cable usage. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
12. reliability of observation on tampering. (Para 48 , 49)
13. assessment of expert witness independence. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
14. burden of proof on plaintiff. (Para 54 , 55)
15. defendant's control of premises noted. (Para 56 , 57 , 58)
16. consequences of defective statements. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
17. requirement of compliance with evidence law. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)
18. discussion on reasons for claim failure. (Para 83 , 84)
19. methodology for loss calculation. (Para 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91)
20. issues regarding the billing period. (Para 92 , 93 , 94)
21. arguments regarding block ice plant usage. (Para 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99)
22. assessment of loss calculation accuracy. (Para 100 , 101 , 102 , 103)
23. federal court guidance on evidence. (Para 104 , 105 , 106)
24. discussion on legal pleadings. (Para 107 , 108 , 109 , 110)
25. conclusion drawn from legal arguments. (Para 111 , 112 , 113)
26. addressing laches and res judicata. (Para 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118)
27. final ruling on claims due to res judicata. (Para 119 , 120 , 121)
28. conclusion: plaintiff's claim dismissed. (Para 126)
Wong Mee Ling J:

Introduction

[1] This is a claim filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for loss of revenue amounting to RM2,346,906.87 with interest and cost due to the tampering of the meter installation at the Defendant's premises.

[2] After going through full trial, having read the parties' written submissions, and after having heard the oral submissions of the parties, I dismissed the Plaintiff's claim with costs of RM10,000.00 to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

[3] The Plaintiff has filed an appeal against part of the decision on quantum and costs whereas the Defendant has appealed against part of the decision on liability and also the decision of Justice Tuan Ahmad Murad bin Abdul Aziz made on 10 August 2022 that allowed the Plaintiff's objection against the Defendant to produce additional documents during the trial. I note that the notice of appeal encompassing the decision of Justice Tuan Ahmad Murad bin Abdul Aziz is incomplete and should have been filed separately by the Defendant.

[4] Below are the grounds of my decision and the grounds do not include the decision made by Justice Tuan Ahmad Murad bin Abdul Aziz made on 10 August 2022.

Background

[5] The background facts in this suit are gathered from the cause papers and submissions filed by the parties and stated in chronological order.

[6] The trial commenced on 7 April 2021 until 14 August 2022 by Justice Tuan Ahmad Murad bin Abdul Aziz. Following His Lordship's transfer to Kuala Lumpur High Court, I was instructed to take over and continue with the trial.

[7] The Plaintiff supplies electricity to the Defendant's ice factory at PTO 140216 and PTO 140216-1, Jalan Berjaya 8/1, Taman Perindustrian Berjaya, Jalan Kempas Lama, 81200 Johor Bahru, Johor registered under the account number 0340 00753047 7 and 0340 00753049 03 respectively.

[8] The Plaintiff carried out an inspection on the meter installation at the Defendant's factory on 21 March 2012 and discovered that the armoured cable at room No 140216 ("MSB1") and No 140216-1 ("MSB2") at Jalan Berjaya 8/1,81200 Kempas Lama, Johor were tampered whereby S1 and S2 wires for all phases of red, yellow and blue after the Terminal Current Transformer (CT)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top