Chua @ Chua Swee Fong v Tenaga Nasional Berhad
Catchwords
The second defendant (appellant) is appealing against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge who dismissed with costs the second defendant's application to dispose of the case filed in the Sessions Court on a point of law under Order 14A rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012"). The plaintiff's claim is primarily governed by the Electricity Supply Act 1990 for meter tampering as well as other factual and legal issues that will be addressed during the trial. The plaintiff claims that the second defendant opened an electricity account under the name of the first defendant without the first defendant's permission. The first defendant is mentally ill. The second defendant argues that since she is not a consumer of electricity supply, how can the plaintiff succeed in its case if the claim is for theft of electricity, particularly when the actual consumer is the first defendant who should be held responsible? As for the second issue of law, the second defendant argues that there is no way she could be legally liable to compensate the plaintiff for any loss of revenue when that responsibility rests with the registered consumer. The Court finds that the questions are not appropriate for determination under Order 14A of the ROC 2012, since the supporting facts are heavily contested. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.
Practice Areas
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-12ancvc-175-10-2024)