The statutory right of recovery for loss of revenue under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 does not require a prior criminal conviction against the consumer for meter tampering.

[1] This case concerns the following appeals:

(1) Rayuan Sivil No: 02(f)-20-03-2015 (P).

(Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Ichi-Ban Plastic (M) Sdn Bhd).

(2) Rayuan Sivil No: 02(f)-63-10-2015(W).

(Bright Rims Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad).

(3) Rayuan Sivil No: 02(f)-64-10-2015(W).

(AWP Enterprise (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad).

(4) Rayuan Sivil No: 02(f)-71-10-2015(W).

(Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Nikmat Maju Development Sdn Bhd).

(5) Rayuan Sivil No: 02(f)-83-11-2015(B).

(Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Dunia Raya Enterprise Sdn Bhd).

(6) Rayuan Sivil No: 02(f)-86-11-2015(P).

(Kepala Batas Bihun Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad).

[2] This court had directed all the six appeals to be heard together. Parties will be referred to by their names. Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) is the appellant in three of the appeals and respondent in the other three.

[3] There are several of question of laws in these appeals which give rise to common issues. Therefore at the outset of the proceeding we adopted the approach applied in Terengganu Forest Products Sdn Bhd v. Cosco Container Lines Co Ltd & Anor & Other Applications, 2010 MarsdenLR 1546 . We decided to hear and consider the common issues of law. Our decision on these issues of law would then be made applicable to the respective appeals for disposal. In other words, once these issues are decided upon, parties will then revert to argue on the substantial merit of their respective appeals. Therefore at this stage, the facts of the respective appeals are not relevant. [See per Zaki Azmi CJ in Terengganu Forest at p 622].

[4] The leave questions in respect of which applications for leave to appeal were allowed in the six appeals may collectively be grouped into the following issues:

(1) Whether a consumer must first be convicted for meter tampering before TNB could recover the loss of revenue under ss 38(3) and (4) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 [the Act]: The Prior Conviction Point;

(2) The legal effect of the written statement from TNB under s 38(4) of the Act for purposes of recovery of the loss of revenue: The Written Statement Point;

(3) Whether an estimation or approximation of the loss of revenue suffered by TNB as a result of a tampered meter at the consumer's premises is precluded under a s 38 claim: The Calculation Point;

(4) Whether the rationale behind s 38 of the Act enabling TNB to recover the unrecorded consumption of electricity by the consumer due to a tampered meter is the unjust benefit enjoyed by the consumer: The Benefit/Unjust Enrichment Point; and

(5) Whether estoppel arising from delay applies to nullify a s 38 claim: The Estoppel Point.

[5] We will consider these points in turn.

The Prior Conviction Point

[6] AWP Enterprise Sdn Bhd is one of the appellants. On 21 February 2011, the Kuala Lumpur High court dismissed TNB's claims of RM443,598.77 and interest against the appellant for loss of revenue from the supply of electricity to AWP Enterprise Sdn Bhd due to alleged meter tempering. AWP Enterprise denied tempering with the meter.

[7] On appeal by TNB, the court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the High court and allowed TNB's claim for the sum of RM443,598.77 with interest thereon at 8% per annum from the date of judgment until full realisation.

[8] On 9 September 2015, this court granted the appellant leave to appeal against the decision of the court of Appeal on five questions of law, inclusive of the following questions of law:

(i) Whether the respondent is obliged to obtain a criminal conviction against