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.

Sorotan Terkini

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
ms_MYMY