Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

LAW OF TORT– TRESPASS – SQUATTERS – TNB – ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

I am an owner of a property. I am a registered proprietor. There are squatters who unlawfully occupy my property. Can I ask Tenaga Nasional Berhad (“TNB”) to stop supplying electricity to the squatters?

Yes.

  • TNB has to comply with the owner’s demand to cease supply of electricity.
  • Otherwise, TNB will expose itself to a claim of trespass.
  • TNB has a protocol to supply electricity to applicant who can produce supporting documentation showing he/she is entitled to occupation of the property.

What is trespass?

  • In law, trespass is defined as “unlawful direct and immediate interference with the possession of land which is in the possession of another person, or which another person is entitled to possession of”.
  • It simply means interference of someone’s land. Interference could be setting a foot, taking possession, destroying the items or building something on the land.

What is the law that protects my right to my property?

  • Right to property is a right enshrined in our Federal Constitution via Article 13. Article 13 reads “(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law”.

STEP 1 : Serve the order declaring the squatters’ status on TNB.
STEP 2 : Demand for TNB to stop supplying electricity to the squatters.

Case in point: Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Bukit Lenang Development Sdn Bhd [2019] 1MLJ 1. Federal Court (Putrajaya) – Civil Appeal no 02(f)-108/10 of 2017(J)

Recent Post

WHEN CARGO GOES ASTRAY: THE RISKS OF DELIVERING WITHOUT A BILL OF LADING

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

TORT — NEGLIGENCE — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — A MISSED LIFELINE: COURT HOLDS MEDICAL TEAM LIABLE FOR BRAIN DAMAGE IN HIGH-RISK PREGNANCY CASE

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

NAVIGATING LIABILITY: THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE FJORD WIND AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

The Court of Appeal ruled in The Fjord Wind case that the vessel was unseaworthy at the time of departure from Rosario on 30.06.1990, due to known issues with the crankpin bearings that had not been adequately addressed. This unseaworthiness led to a main engine failure shortly after departure, necessitating the transhipment of cargo and incurring additional costs.

The court found the shipowners liable for damages, emphasizing their failure to exercise due diligence in maintaining the vessel’s seaworthiness. The ruling underscores the critical importance of thorough inspections and repairs in maritime operations, highlighting the legal responsibilities of shipowners to prevent unseaworthiness and related liabilities.

Read More »

STRATA MANAGEMENT – COMMON PROPERTY CONUNDRUM: CENTRALIZED AC COSTS AND THE STRATA MANAGEMENT DEBATE

In a recent legal dispute, the classification of centralized air conditioning facilities (CACF) as common property has come under scrutiny. The Plaintiff, a parcel owner in Tower A of Menara UOA Bangsar, challenged the Management Body’s use of maintenance funds for the upkeep of CACF, which primarily benefits parcels in Tower B. The court is likely to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim, reinforcing the principle that as long as CACF serves two or more occupiers, it is deemed common property, thus falling under the Management Body’s purview without requiring reimbursement from individual parcel owners.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us