Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Sime Darby Plantation Berhad & Anor

Appellant(s): Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Respondent(s):

• Sime Darby Plantation Berhad
• Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Klang

• YAA Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji Nawawi
• YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar
• YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin

• The land reference proceedings arose from the compulsory acquisition of portions of land owned by the first respondent by the second respondent, on behalf of the appellant, for the construction of a 132kV transmission line.
• The second respondent awarded compensation to the first respondent, which the appellant accepted and paid. However, the first respondent disputed the adequacy of the compensation and lodged a statutory Form N.
• The appellant, as the acquiring body and paymaster, did not file Form N but subsequently applied to the High Court to intervene or be granted the right to appear and be heard in the land reference proceedings, citing sections 43 and 55 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (LAA) and Order 15 rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012).

• Whether the appellant, as the paymaster who accepted the Land Administrator's award and did not file Form N, had the legal standing to intervene or be heard in the land reference proceedings initiated by the landowner.
• Whether the High Court correctly applied the Federal Court's decision in *Tenaga Nasional Nasional Bhd v Unggul Tangkas Sdn Bhd & Anor And Other Appeals* (which required Form N for paymasters to participate) or should have followed *Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad* (which allowed intervention via O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) ROC for landowners who accepted the award).
• Whether the requirement to file Form N under section 37 of the LAA is the sole mechanism for an interested party, particularly a paymaster, to participate in land reference proceedings.

• The High Court dismissed the appellant's application, holding that the filing of Form N was a mandatory requirement for any party to object to an award and participate in land reference proceedings, relying on *Unggul Tangkas*.
• The Court of Appeal held that the Federal Court's decision in *Spicon Products* established that the filing of Form N is not required for participation when a party has accepted the award without objection, and that an application to intervene under O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) ROC 2012 may be made in appropriate circumstances.
• The Court found that *Spicon Products* did not distinguish between landowners and paymasters for the purpose of intervention via O. 15 r. 6(2)(b) ROC and, as a later Federal Court decision, it prevailed over *Unggul Tangkas*. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision.