Telekom Malaysia Berhad

On the court record

Illustrates how the courts resolve questions about the enforceability of arbitral pronouncements, adjudicate trespass and land-use disputes connected with telecommunications infrastructure, and manage the procedural incidents of a utility's litigation.

Telekom Malaysia Berhad appears in this corpus as the national telecommunications utility, in roles including respondent and appellant, with matters decided across the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. A significant decision concerns arbitration: the enforceability of oral pronouncements made by an arbitral tribunal in a bifurcated arbitration, where the Federal Court examined whether an oral ruling, before a written award, binds the parties — a question of general importance for the conduct of arbitral proceedings. A second strand concerns land and infrastructure: as a utility that lays cables and installs equipment, the company features in disputes over the entry upon and use of land, including declarations of trespass (menceroboh — trespass) and the assessment of damages, and questions arising under Order 7 of the Rules of Court 2012 and sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1950 on the burden of proof, in matters connected with the acquisition or use of land and the Land Administrator. The corpus also includes ordinary civil-procedure disputes, such as the striking out of a claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 and applications to recuse a judge or to intervene in proceedings involving the wider telecommunications sector. Because the company appears both as a party enforcing or defending its network and contractual interests and as a respondent to claims connected with its infrastructure, the decisions reflect the range of a utility's litigation. The matters are decided across the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. Collectively the decisions in which Telekom Malaysia is a party illustrate how the courts resolve questions about the enforceability of arbitral pronouncements, adjudicate trespass and land-use disputes connected with telecommunications infrastructure, and manage the procedural incidents of a utility's litigation. Several of the reported matters also concern the recusal of a judge and applications for leave to intervene in proceedings affecting the wider telecommunications sector, so that the decisions address the procedural framework of a utility's litigation as well as its substance. Across these matters the company appears both as a party enforcing or defending its network and contractual interests and as a respondent to claims connected with its infrastructure.