In Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Lam Sau Tai (sued as administrator of the estate of Siew Nyuk Sang, deceased) & Anor, the electricity supply to the premises had been tampered and traces of cryptocurrency mining were found.
The premises owner had rented the premises to a third party but he passed away before the tampering was discovered by TNB.
The TNB sued the defendants, being the administrators of the deceased’s estate, for the outstanding electricity charges.
The Sessions Court found that the TNB’s cause of action accrued only upon the discovery of the tampering i.e., after the passing of the deceased. As such, the plaintiff could not maintain the action under s. 8(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956 (which allows a cause of action to survive the death of a person). The Sessions Court also held that the action could not be maintained under s. 8(4) of the same Act (which allows actions against deceased wrongdoers), as the plaintiff could not prove when the tampering had taken place.
This case raises an interesting point of law: Is an estate liable for a cause of action that arose after the deceased’s passing? I believe it should be, but the answer is not straightforward. One must carefully examine various statutory provisions and case law to arrive at a conclusion.
Nevertheless, the purpose of this post is to highlight an interesting passage by the Sessions Court. The Judge essentially stated that a service provider, who has control over and access to the relevant technology, plays a role in combating fraud. The relevant sections are at paragraphs 100 to 104 of the grounds of judgment.
An earlier version of this case summary was published by Foong Cheng Leong on LinkedIn.
Leave a Reply