INDAH WATER KONSORTIUM Sdn Bhd

On the court record

A national sewerage utility whose matters cover lawful termination of a services agreement for material breach, defamation over public criticism, and recovery of charges for connected services.

INDAH WATER KONSORTIUM Sdn Bhd, the national sewerage-services company, appears in the corpus across contract, defamation and utility-charge matters, and its appearances reflect the litigation of a public-utility operator. In one High Court matter the court dismissed a plaintiff's suit in its entirety, finding that the company had proven multiple material breaches of an agreement by the plaintiff that justified the company's termination on 28 March 2023 under Clause 10.2(a), which the court held to be lawful and valid, and rejecting the plaintiff's claims for damages. In a striking-out matter the court allowed an application under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012, striking out a claim against one defendant with costs.

As a plaintiff the company sued for defamation over statements made to newspapers concerning the National Water Service Industry Restructuring and compliance with the Water Services Industry Act, the statements having been made by a person speaking as the president of an industry association about pollution caused by sewerage and the need to upgrade sewerage infrastructure. In an appeal it litigated whether a Sessions Court had erred in finding a defendant to be a registered user of its services and in awarding an outstanding amount of RM323,588.48 for connected sewerage services.

For a reader, the cluster is a useful cross-section of utility litigation: the lawful termination of a services agreement for material breach, a public utility's recourse to defamation over public criticism, and the recovery of charges for connected services. The company and corporate parties are named as they appear on the record; individual defendants and speakers are referred to by their procedural role only. As a national utility the company litigates from an unusual position, appearing both as a contracting party enforcing and terminating agreements and as a claimant using defamation to answer public criticism of its services. The cluster shows a public-service provider defending its commercial and reputational interests through the ordinary civil law, while the recovery of charges for connected services reflects its statutory role.