An existing agreement on calculation methods for reimbursements binds both parties, even amidst disputes. Claims based on agreed facts do not require further proof, preserving the validity of the agreement despite allegations of internal management issues.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Supply Act 1990 - Section 9 - Dispute regarding recalculation of electricity charges and repair costs of a substation - Plaintiff's claims for RM407,823.33 for electricity charges and RM16,589.00 for repair costs allowed - Defendant failed to prove inaccuracies in Plaintiff's calculation methodology even after agreeing to a variance, thus binding them to the agreement on recalculation - Court held action was not time-barred as cause of action crystallized when recalculation agreement was made. (Paras 96, 100, 128)

(B) Cause of action - Prerequisite for establishing a claim - Claim may not be based on internal management disputes of a party - Plaintiff not required to prove accuracy beyond the agreed method of recalculation. (Para 126)

(C) Repair costs - Defendant's acknowledgment of liability for agreed repair expenses supports Plaintiff's claim. (Para 130)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, account holder of a shared electrical substation, sought reimbursement from the Defendant for overcharged electricity consumption and repair costs after selling two parcels of land. A submeter disagreement arose post-sale about how to calculate charges over several years. (Paras 5-35)

Findings of Court:
The court found that parties agreed on a recalculation method for electricity consumption, which binds both. Also, internal management issues of the Defendant have no bearing on the agreement's validity. (Paras 127, 129)

Issues: Whether the Defendant owed the Plaintiff RM407,823.00 for electricity charges from September 2013 to July 2018; whether the Plaintiff can properly claim this based on the recalculated figures; implications of any internal management disputes. (Paras 36-38)

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that established calculations and agreements take precedence over disputes raised post-agreement, emphasizing the obligation of the Defendant to adhere to their prior commitments. (Paras 99, 103)

Result: Plaintiff's claims allowed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case and court proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. background facts of electricity charges and repair costs. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
3. defendant's contentions regarding claims and agreements. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
4. plaintiff's submission on calculation errors. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
5. arguments against plaintiff's claim and assertions of the defendant. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
6. discussion on limitation period. (Para 61 , 62)
7. court's findings on calculations and agreements. (Para 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106)
8. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 129 , 130 , 131)

Yong Leou Shin J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(after a full trial)

A. INTRODUCTION

[1]This is a dispute concerns a claim over the recalculation of electricity consumption charges and the repair costs of the Original Substation made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

[2]After full trial, this court allowed the Plaintiffs claim in full. Dissatisfied, the Defendant filed an appeal against the court’s decision.

[3]The relevant cause papers filed and marked in this trial are:

Enclosure No.	Bundle/ Exhibit	Document
7	A	(katan Pliding
10	B	Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Bahagian A
14	C	Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Bahagian B
15	D	Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Bahagian C
23	G	Ikatan Dokumen Bersama Tambahan
22	H	Ikatan Dokumen Defendan
8	E	Fakta-Fakta Yang Dipersetujui
9	F	Isu-lsu Untuk Dibicarakan
12	I	Isu Tambahan Defendan

[4]The following are the witness statements that were tendered and marked as evidence during the trial:-

1.	WSSP1	witness statement of SP1 - Khoo Chun Keong
2.	WSSP2	witness statement of SP2 - Tan Chooi Foon
3.	WSSD1	witness statement of SD1 - Lai Sak Coon
4.	WSSD2	witness statement of SD2 - Muhammad Firdaus Bin Ibrahim
5.	WSSD3	witness statement of SD3 - Yong Aoi Thim

B. FACTS BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM(i) Electricity Charges

[5]The dispute arose as a result of a shared TNB account which supply power to both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

[6]The Plaintiff was the owner of 4 pieces of land known as PT54753, PT54755, Lot 4998, Lot 5017 in which a substation was originally built to supply electricity to the 4 lands. The substation is located at PT54755 (“the Original Substation”) and the Plaintiff was the account holder for the Original Substation.

[7]On 1.8.2013, PT54755 and Lot 4998 were sold by the Plaintiff to the Defendants and vacant possession was given to the Defendant on 1,9.2013.

[8]Pending a new substation to be installed, the Original Substation continued to supply power to the 4 lands and the charges will be borne by parties respectively.

[9]As the Original Substation was registered under the Plaintiff’s name, the Plaintiff will pay the electricity charges and the Defendant will reimburse the Plaintiff, the portion of its usage.

[10]It was agreed between the parties by their respective conduct that the Defendant will reimburse the Plaintiff the electricity consumed bv the Defendant based on the calculation done by the Plaintiff. [Agreed Facts - Ref: Exhibit E, paragraph 12]

[11]Since September 2013, the Defendant had paid to the Plaintiff the sum of RM984,892.18 for September 2013 until November 2016, save for the electricity charges for September 2016. [Agreed Facts - Ref: Exhibit E, paragraph 9]

[12]On around July 2017, a submeter was installed by the Defendant to record the electricity consumed by the Defendant on its lands. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff remains as the Original Substation’s account holder at that material times.

[Agreed Facts - Ref: Exhibit E, paragraph 10]

[13]After the submeter was installed, the Plaintiff then calculate the usage by the Defendant and demanded a further sum of RM930,136.16 to be paid.

[14]The Defendant disputed the sum and both parties have gone through few meetings to settle the demand by the Plaintiff.

[15]In between on or around 18.7.2018, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 MarsdenLR 6218

SESSION COURT (SHAH ALAM)Yong Leou Shin, JUnited Industries Sdn Bhd – AppellantVersusNetflix Sdn Bhd – RespondentCIVIL SUIT NO BA-B52NCVC-191-08 OF 2021

An existing agreement on calculation methods for reimbursements binds both parties, even amidst disputes. Claims based on agreed facts do not require further proof, preserving the validity of the agreement despite allegations of internal management issues.

Yong Leou Shin J:

SESSION COURT (SHAH ALAM)
Yong Leou Shin, J
United Industries Sdn Bhd – Appellant
Versus
Netflix Sdn Bhd – Respondent
CIVIL SUIT NO BA-B52NCVC-191-08 OF 2021