Case Review Law of Tort
TRESPASS TO LAND
BUKIT LENANG DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v. TELEKOM MALAYSIA BHD & ORS [2012] 1 CLJ
FACTS
The plaintiff purchased a land from Oakfield Enterprises Sdn Bhd through a sale and purchase agreement dated 15 May 1996. The plaintiff was aware at that time of the presence of squatters on the land. Following the said purchase, the plaintiff commenced eviction proceedings against the squatters and succeeded in obtaining judgment where the court ordered that the squatters surrender vacant possession of the subject land to plaintiff. The plaintiff’s solicitors demanded that second defendant cease supply of electricity and remove all structures in connection with the supply by letter dated 28 April 2004. Plaintiff brings a suit due to second defendant’s refusal to comply with the demand. The defence counsel, however, argued that second defendant could not be held liable for trespass in view of its statutory obligation under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (ESA), and the plaintiff had failed to distinguish between the lots owned by the plaintiff and the rest of the land.
ISSUES
1. Whether second defendant's failure to comply with plaintiff's demand to cease supply of electricity and remove structures in plaintiff's land can be amounted to trespass to land?
2. Whether second defendant liable for trespass to a certain extent?
JUDGMENT
1. The High Court had come to a conclusion that the second defendant liable for trespass to the extent of supplying electricity to legal occupants in plaintiff's land. The illegal occupants did not have the authority to allow TNB as licensee to place any structures on the land of its cables or wires to run over the plaintiff’s lots which would be trespass. A valid and subsisting High Court order declaring the occupants’ status as squatters or trespassers had been served on second defendant and they had to comply with the plaintiff’s demand to cease supply of electricity premised on a valid and enforceable order.
BUKIT LENANG DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v. TELEKOM MALAYSIA BHD & ORS [2012] 1 CLJ
FACTS
The plaintiff purchased a land from Oakfield Enterprises Sdn Bhd through a sale and purchase agreement dated 15 May 1996. The plaintiff was aware at that time of the presence of squatters on the land. Following the said purchase, the plaintiff commenced eviction proceedings against the squatters and succeeded in obtaining judgment where the court ordered that the squatters surrender vacant possession of the subject land to plaintiff. The plaintiff’s solicitors demanded that second defendant cease supply of electricity and remove all structures in connection with the supply by letter dated 28 April 2004. Plaintiff brings a suit due to second defendant’s refusal to comply with the demand. The defence counsel, however, argued that second defendant could not be held liable for trespass in view of its statutory obligation under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (ESA), and the plaintiff had failed to distinguish between the lots owned by the plaintiff and the rest of the land.
ISSUES
1. Whether second defendant's failure to comply with plaintiff's demand to cease supply of electricity and remove structures in plaintiff's land can be amounted to trespass to land?
2. Whether second defendant liable for trespass to a certain extent?
JUDGMENT
1. The High Court had come to a conclusion that the second defendant liable for trespass to the extent of supplying electricity to legal occupants in plaintiff's land. The illegal occupants did not have the authority to allow TNB as licensee to place any structures on the land of its cables or wires to run over the plaintiff’s lots which would be trespass. A valid and subsisting High Court order declaring the occupants’ status as squatters or trespassers had been served on second defendant and they had to comply with the plaintiff’s demand to cease supply of electricity premised on a valid and enforceable order.