Big Man Management Sdn Bhd V Tenaga Nasional Berhad [2025] 5 MLJ 290

Federal Court (Putrajaya)

Civil Procedure — Damages — Award of — Special damages – Electricity — Disconnection of — Wrongful disconnection

1. Big Man Management Sdn Bhd (“Big Man”) operated an ice-making factory owned by Ice Man Sdn Bhd (“Ice Man”) and was the registered electricity consumer with Tenaga Nasional Berhad (“TNB”). In 2014 and 2015, TNB discovered tampering of its electricity meters at the factory but subsequently rectified the meters. Despite the rectification and cessation of any tampering, TNB disconnected the electricity supply twice—first from 2 July 2014 to 1 October 2014, and again from 8 April 2015 to 14 May 2015.
2. Big Man denied involvement in any tampering and maintained it had no access to the meter room. The disconnections crippled the ice production business, which relied entirely on electricity. To mitigate losses, Big Man rented and later purchased generators and purchased diesel to maintain operations. Big Man also indemnified Ice Man for losses suffered during the outages, as required under a management agreement between the two companies.
3. Big Man sued TNB in the High Court alleging wrongful disconnection of electricity, trespass, wrongful interference with business, defamation, and breach of statutory duty for disclosing its account details. The High Court found that TNB’s disconnections were unlawful under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (ESA), awarded special damages of about RM3.56 million, and granted exemplary damages equal to 25% of the special damages.
4. TNB appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed TNB’s liability for wrongful disconnection but set aside the damages award, ruling that Big Man had not “strictly proved” special damages and that exemplary damages were not available for breach of contract.
5. Big Man then appealed to the Federal Court.

1. Whether the requirement that “special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proven” imposes a higher evidentiary standard than the ordinary civil balance of probabilities?
2. Whether exemplary (punitive) damages can be awarded against a statutory electricity supplier for wrongful disconnection of electricity when the claim includes breach of statutory duty and/or contract?

(1)  Whether the requirement that “special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proven” imposes a higher evidentiary standard than the ordinary civil balance of probabilities?

(a) The Federal Court answered this question in the negative, clarifying that the phrase “strictly proved” has often been misunderstood as requiring a higher threshold of proof. The Court held –

The phrase ‘strictly proved’ does not denote that evidence is bound to be adduced to a greater degree than the balance of probabilities. It merely requires clear, robust and convincing evidence establishing both the fact and the quantum of loss.” (paras [33]–[44])

(b) The Court explained that the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities remains applicable. “Strict proof” simply means the claimant must present credible evidence—such as invoices, vouchers, and witness testimony—showing a direct causal link between the defendant’s wrongful act and the loss suffered. Scientific precision is unnecessary; the court “must do the best it can based on the evidence before it” (para [42]).

(c)  Applying these principles, the Court found that Big Man had produced extensive documentary and oral evidence of the rental and purchase of generators, diesel expenses, and indemnity payments to Ice Man. This evidence satisfied the civil standard. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeal erred in demanding a higher evidentiary threshold and therefore reinstated the High Court’s award of special damages.

(2)  Whether exemplary (punitive) damages can be awarded against a statutory electricity supplier for wrongful disconnection of electricity when the claim includes breach of statutory duty and/or contract?

(a) The Federal Court answered this question in the affirmative, holding that exemplary damages may be awarded when a statutory duty is breached with oppressive or high-handed conduct. The Court noted that while many common law jurisdictions, including the UK, Australia, India, and Singapore, generally disallow exemplary damages for breach of contract, Canadian authorities permit such awards where there is an “independent actionable wrong” in addition to the contractual breach

(b) The Court observed that Big Man’s pleadings disclosed not only breach of contract but also breach of statutory duty under section 24 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990, which obliges TNB to supply electricity except in limited circumstances. The Court held –

TNB’s unlawful disconnection of electricity, undertaken to compel payment of alleged arrears, constituted a breach of its statutory duty and amounted to oppressive conduct justifying exemplary damages.” (para [96])

(c)  The Court emphasized that TNB, as the sole licensed electricity supplier, abused its monopoly and acted with mala fides by disconnecting supply after the alleged meter tampering had been rectified, deliberately prolonging the first disconnection and issuing disconnection notices to pressure Big Man into settling disputed arrears (paras [79]–[95])

(d) Accordingly, the Federal Court upheld the High Court’s award of exemplary damages amounting to 25% of the special damages, stressing that monopolistic utilities must exercise their statutory powers lawfully and that oppressive disconnections intended to extract payment warrant punitive sanctions.

1. The Federal Court allowed the appeal. Reinstated the High Court’s award of special damages totaling about RM3.56 million plus interest. Granted exemplary damages of 25% of the special damages, finding TNB’s conduct oppressive and in breach of statutory dut

1. Proof of special damages only requires evidence on a balance of probabilities and not a higher threshold.
2. Exemplary damages can be awarded when a statutory duty is breached with oppressive or malicious intent, even if the claim includes contractual elements.
3. Statutory bodies with monopoly power, such as TNB, must act lawfully or risk attracting punitive damages.
4. Appellate courts should avoid overturning trial findings on credibility and evidence unless those findings are clearly unjustified.