Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

LAND LAW – WAYLEAVE – COMPENSATION

In brief

  •  Under Malaysian law, way leave is a procedure for obtaining easement rights over property for the purpose of installing any electrical system. Because the term “wayleave” is not defined in the ESA, a reference has been made to the situation in the United Kingdom, where a wayleave is a method of granting a corporation the right to construct and maintain cabling or pipes across private land in exchange for an annual payment to the landowner. A wayleave is often a temporary agreement that does not transfer to a new owner or occupant automatically. It’s a type of licence that’s personal to the parties, can be terminated after a set amount of time, and won’t bind the successors in title, as stated in the wayleave agreement.

Q. Is it permissible for TNB technicians to enter your land with a wayleave that they have obtained?

A. Yes, a wayleave gives them access to the property so they may build and maintain cabling to minimise frequent tripping and to offer an adequate, high-quality, and dependable system.*

Rights of wayleave under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (ESA)   

  • Sections 11 and 13 of the ESA are two significant clauses that pertain to the right to wayleave. For the right to use the wayleave, the licensee must pay compensation to the landowner or anyone with an interest in the land. The method for obtaining the right to wayleave is outlined in Section 11 of the ESA. To begin, the landowner must be served with a Notice of the First Schedule under section 11(2) of the ESA, informing them of TNB’s intentions to access their property. Landowners have two weeks to file an objection, as required by section 11(4) of the ESA. TNB may enter the land to carry out the necessary work if no objections are filed. If a landowner files an objection, the District Land Administrator will hear their arguments or concerns.
  •  If a landowner files an objection, the District Land Administrator will hear their arguments or concerns. Upon completion of the investigation, the administrator may make an order under section 11(7) of the ESA authorising or banning any of the conduct described in the notification, either unconditionally or subject to such terms. The order must be in the form set forth in the Second Schedule, and the State Authority has the authority to order the purchase of any land or portion of any land included in the notice.
  • TNB can also enter other people’s land under section 13 of the ESA, which states that “whenever it is necessary so to do for the purpose of maintaining, repairing, or upgrading any licenced installation of any part thereof, the licensee, or any person authorised by him in that behalf, may at all reasonable times enter upon any land on, under, or over which supply lines have been laid, placed, or carried, or upon which posts or other equipment have been placed or carried, the licensee, or any person authorised by him. TNB will, as a result, ensure that as little harm as possible is caused, and will provide full compensation in line with section 16 of the ESA, as such damages have not been evaluated under section 11 of the ESA.

Examples: In the case of Dusunku Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2022] the plaintiff protested to the proceedings, and as a result of the objection, the Pendang District Land Administrator (‘the land administrator’) undertook an investigation under section 11(6) of the ESA 1990. Following the completion of the investigation, the land administrator granted wayleave to the defendant under section 11(7) of the ESA 1990, followed by compensation to the plaintiff in the amount of RM188,672.40. The complainant filed an appeal to the MMK under section 16(2) of the ESA 1990 because he was unsatisfied with the compensation amount. The plaintiff then claimed that the defendant had failed to comply with the MMK’s ruling by agreeing to pay the plaintiff RM399,312.

How does the compensation value be evaluated? 

  •  The District Land Administrator or TNB will send the case to the Valuation and Property Services Department and the Ministry of Finance for the creation of valuation reports for compensation purposes. The valuation will be based on the market value of the impacted land as well as the market value of the trees that already exist on the property. Hearings or investigations shall be conducted by the District Land Administrator for compensation under section 16 ESA for any disruption, damage, or impairment that occurs as a consequence. 
  •  Compensation for disturbance refers to the payment for the removal of houses, buildings, and other permanent structures; compensation for damage refers to the payment for the removal of trees and plants with economic value; and compensation for disability refers to the payment for land areas affected by the ren-tice. To avoid future disputes, both the utility and the owner or occupier of the land must agree on the rate of compensation given under the wayleave agreement.

Recent Post

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
en_USEN