A-PACK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES SDN BHD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

A-PACK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES SDN BHD TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

The appeal was dismissed because the court found on the balance of probabilities that tampering was established on the inspection date (16 June 2011), the cause of action was statutory and accrued on that date so limitation did not bar the claim, the s38(4) certified written statement (exhibit P13) constituted prima facie evidence of the amount due which the defendant failed to rebut, estimation of loss was reasonable and permissible, the Weights and Measures Act did not apply to the ammeter used for tampering detection, and the trial judge properly assessed and rejected the defendant's expert and factual defences.

Citation
JA-12BNCvC-32-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: A-PACK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES SDN BHD; Respondent/plaintiff: TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 August 2020
Case Number
JA-12BNCvC-32-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (high Court) / Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Meter Tampering, Statutory Claim for Loss of Revenue Under S38 Electricity Supply Act, Prima Facie Statutory Evidence (s38(4)), Limitation and Accrual of Cause of Action, Exclusion and Weight of Expert Opinion, Calibration/verification of Instruments, Pleading Requirements, Estimation of Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Electricity Supply Law Limitation Law Evidence Law Regulatory Compliance (weights & Measures) Meter Tampering Statutory Claim for Loss of Revenue Under S38 Electricity Supply Act Prima Facie Statutory Evidence (s38(4)) Limitation and Accrual of Cause of Action +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A-PACK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES SDN BHD

Appellant/defendant

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (high Court) / Judgment on Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings failed to rely on the statutory provisions required
  3. 3 Whether tampering was established and whether identity of tamperer must be proved

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the court found on the balance of probabilities that tampering was established on the inspection date (16 June 2011), the cause of action was statutory and accrued on that date so limitation did not bar the claim, the s38(4) certified written statement (exhibit P13) constituted prima facie evidence of the amount due which the defendant failed to rebut, estimation of loss was reasonable and permissible, the Weights and Measures Act did not apply to the ammeter used for tampering detection, and the trial judge properly assessed and rejected the defendant's expert and factual defences.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to Respondent