Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

PUBLIC UTILITIES – ELECTRICITY – DISCONNECTION OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

In brief 

  •  Tenaga Nasional Berhad (“TNB”) is Peninsular Malaysia’s sole power provider. TNB is required by law to provide power to everybody who has requested and applied for it.  Electricity Supply Act 1990 (“ESA 1990”) and the Licensee Supply Regulations 1990 (“LSR 1990”), control TNB’s interaction with its customers. While TNB is required by law to provide power upon request, there are several circumstances in which TNB may legitimately decline to do so. Non-payment of bills, non-payment of deposit, and dishonest usage of electricity are the three major reasons on which TNB has the authority to disconnect electrical service.

Non-payment of bills

  •  Consumers have a contractual duty to pay their monthly bills within 30 days of the bill’s issue, otherwise TNB may terminate electrical service to your property. TNB can also exercise its power to interrupt electrical supplies under the ESA 1990 and LSR 1990, in particular, Regulation 4 of the LSR 1990. In any case, TNB is obligated to follow specific procedures before disconnecting the electrical supply (“Pre-conditions”). TNB must first issue a written demand allowing the customer in default 7 working days to settle the due balance and then serve a notice of intention to disconnect 3 working days prior to the disconnection if Regulation 3 of the LSR 1990 applies.

Non-payment of deposit or insufficient deposit balance 

  •  TNB requires customers to submit and keep a deposit when they first registered for electricity service. Clause 4 of the Supply Contract and Regulation 5 of the LSR 1990 both provide for this. TNB may cut the energy supply to the premises if the electricity bill is not paid on time and the deposit balance is inadequate after subtracting the overdue amount.

Dishonesty of electricity usage

  •  Over the years, there has been a significant increase in cases involving deceptive power use, sometimes known as meter tampering. Any person who dishonestly abstracts, consumes, or uses electricity, or adjusts the index of the meter or other instruments, or prevents the meter or instrument from duly recording the consumption of electricity, commits an offence under the ESA 1990.

Q. When the meter was replaced by the TNB, did the right to disconnect end?

A. TNB may choose to replace the tampered meter rather than exercising its rights under Section 38(1) of the ESA 1990 immediately if evidence of meter tampering is discovered. The consumer contended that TNB was not justified in disconnecting electricity service under Section 38(1) of the ESA 1990 since TNB had replaced the allegedly tampered with meter in Karun Klasik Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2018] 3 MLJ 749. In Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Chew Thai Kay & Anor [2022] 2 MLJ 25, on the other hand, the court found that after the impugned meter was corrected, there was no longer any problem of meter tampering, and so the crime under s.37(1) was no longer present. To invoke the power of disconnection, there has to be a continuous offence.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami