9 Jan 2026
The DGM's factual finding that the appellant was not an employee was supported by the appellant's own evidence showing absence of control and integration; therefore the DGM had no jurisdiction under s69 to grant the claim and the High Court will not intervene on appeal where no injustice in the fact-finding is shown.
17 Jul 2025
The High Court found the Majistret erred in allocating 100% liability to the defendant; on appellate review the court apportioned liability 60% to the defendant (Perayu Pertama) and 40% contributory negligence to the plaintiff (Responden); upheld general damages awarded (RM26,000) but held only medical expenses actually paid by the plaintiff (RM1,043.25) constitute recoverable special damages, deducting insurer-paid amounts (RM19,178.70); awarded costs RM3,000 in favour of the appellants, subject to taxation.
8 Jul 2025
Plaintiff failed to prove existence and performance of a binding contract because it did not produce invoices, delivery orders or corroborative documentary evidence of delivery or acceptance, and gave no explanation for their absence warranting an adverse inference under s114(g); the POs alone and oral assertions were insufficient to establish acceptance or consideration; therefore the Sessions Court's finding of a valid contract was plainly wrong and the defendants' appeal on the main claim is allowed while the counterclaim fails for lack of proof.
26 Jun 2024
The High Court held that the Sessions Court judge had judicially appreciated the evidence and was not plainly wrong in finding meter tampering supplying the Defendant's premises; under Section 38(3) ESA the registered account holder is liable for loss of revenue from tampering regardless of who committed the tampering; the Plaintiff's calculation of loss based on pre-drop average usage was accepted; appeal dismissed and costs ordered.
24 Apr 2024
The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: consolidation was refused because the TNB claim is a statutory cause under ESA 1990 for meter tampering and loss of revenue while the appellant’s action against third parties is contractual/negligence; the causes are different, mere involvement of the same premises or subject matter is insufficient to justify consolidation, and consolidation would risk cross-actions and prejudice; appellate intervention was not justified as the lower court's factual and legal analysis was not plainly wrong.
7 Dec 2023
Court held Respondent had locus standi; the original DGI sanction dated 21 Oct 2016 was sufficient; the Agreement was effectively at an end such that rent and restitutionary liability arose on termination/commencement of proceedings and rent is payable from 1 November 2016; High Court awards for monthly rent and continuing charges required reassessment, and orders were varied accordingly with reassessment by a sole court-appointed valuer and adjustment of charges to commence from 1 November 2016; Appellant's counterclaim for loss of use was unproved.
30 May 2023
The High Court held the trial judge's 50:50 apportionment of liability was not plainly wrong and thus affirmed; however the trial judge erred in awarding full future private medical costs without adequate justification, and applying established principles the Court reduced future private medical costs to one-third (revising the future private treatment award to RM23,400 on 100% liability and RM11,700 on 50:50 liability). Other heads of damages were affirmed as not being wrongly assessed.
15 May 2023
High Court found the Sessions Court erred in law and fact, applied Federal Court authority that TNB can pursue loss under s38(3) without criminal conviction and that s38(4) statements must meet formal requirements to be prima facie; losses may be estimated if reasonable; Energy Commission guidelines are not binding; on contractual terms the tenant was contractually obliged to indemnify the owner, therefore the appellant and TNB's claims were allowed.
11 Apr 2022
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sessions Court: on the evidence and balance of probabilities the reseller had performed its contractual obligations, the termination and penalty were wrongly applied because the primary responsibility and exclusive system access to verify and change installation status rested with the telecom (First Defendant) and the alleged fraud was attributable to the agent/third parties; the trial judge’s factual findings were not plainly wrong and did not warrant appellate interference.
27 Jul 2021
The Court held that the CD/video recording was admissible and authentic based on the maker's direct testimony corroborated by an expert's frame/pixel/light-shadow analyses and the witnesses present; the Disciplinary Committee's factual findings were not manifestly perverse, the DB acted within its statutory powers under s.103D to alter punishment, procedural requirements and natural justice were met, and the appellant failed to rebut identification or authenticity. Consequently the conduct proven amounted to misconduct under s.94(3)(o) LPA and Rule 31 and striking off was within the DB's disc…