Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

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

Recent Post

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

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 »
14 July ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN