TOPIC 1

PRELIMINARY MATTERS
PART A
•CAUSE OF ACTION
•LIMITATION OF
PERIOD

NFA2010
 Limitation of Period

MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION (reason to sue; why you are

suing this person)
P must have a clear about in why is he suing this person and what is the
damages and what is the monetary claim
-Case: Lim Kean v Choo Koon (1970) 1 MLJ 158
The P must make sure that the cause of action is valid and still standing.
Why? As without cause of action, you cant take action against the person
• CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE COMPLETE (how to sue that
person and all)
-Cases: Taib bin Awang v Mohamad bin Abdullah & Ors (1983) 2 MLJ
413
- Cause of action must be complete (not only why sue, but also need to
know how to sue.)
-Sio Koon Lin & Anor v S.B Mehra (1981) 1 MLJ 225
- Simetech (M) Sdn Bhd v Yeoh Cheng Liam Construction Sdn Bhd
(1992) 1 MLJ 11 2
NFA2010
 Limitation of Period

•IMPORTANCE OF LIMITATION OF PERIOD

(once you know your reasoning to sue, then need to
look at whether it’s within the limitation period)
-claim is statutory barred
-operates as defence to a claim –Sec 4 Limitation Act 1953
“Nothing in this Act shall operate as a bar to an action unless this Act has been expressly pleaded
as a defence thereto in any case where under any written law relating to civil procedure for the time
being in force such a defence is required to be so pleaded”
Eg: Fraud cases:-limitation period starts when the party found out that there’s a fraud

Civil Law Act: 6 years, so if already over 6 years, then the def must state the
limitation period as a defence (must expressly states it in the defence)

-Cases:
Ronex Properties v John Laing Construction [1983] QB
393
3
)Lee Lee Cheng v Seow Peng Kwang [1960] 1 MLJ 1
NFA2010
 Limitation of Period

•LIMITATION PERIOD FOR AN ACTION

AS PRESCRIBED BY THE VARIOUS
STATUTES
-Periods of limitation are prescribed in many
statutes, eg:
-Limitation Act 1953 (Act 254)
-Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 (Act
198)
-Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67)
-Railways Act 1991 (Act 463)
-(Sabah) Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 72)
-(Sarawak) Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 49)
NFA2010
4
Limitation of Period

•LIMITATION PERIOD FOR AN ACTION AS

PRESCRIBED BY THE VARIOUS STATUTES
Limitation Act 1953 (“LA”)
(i) Sec 6 (1)
-6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued (the
moment starts when the reason to sue starts. Eg 8/72020 Ahmad’s dad
kena langgar, 2/2/2021 Ahmad wishes to sue, so the limitation period
starts on 8/72020) Hence, Limitation period starts when the reason of
sue starts
“(1) Save as hereinafter provided the following actions shall
not be brought after the expiration of six years from the
date on which the cause of action accrued, that is to say-
(a) Actions founded on a contract or on tort;**
(b) Actions to enforce a recognisance;
(c) Actions to enforce an award;
(d) Actions to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any
written law other than a penalty or forfeiture or of a sum by
way of penalty or forfeiture.” 5
NFA2010
 Limitation of Period (Deadline to Cause of Action)

•LIMITATION PERIOD FOR AN ACTION

AS PRESCRIBED BY THE VARIOUS
STATUTES
Limitation Act 1953 (“LA”)
(i) Sec 6 (1) Cases:
Pirelli General Cable Works v Oscar [1983] 1 All ER
65
Cartledge v Jopling [1963] AC 758
Credit Corp (M) Bhd v Fong Tak Sin [1991] 1 MLJ
409; [1991] 1 CLJ 69 (Rep) [1991] 2 CLJ 871
AmBank (M) Bhd v Abdul Aziz Hassan & Ors [2010]
7 CLJ 663
6
NFA2010
Limitation of Period

•LIMITATION PERIOD FOR AN ACTION AS

PRESCRIBED BY THE VARIOUS STATUTES
Limitation Act 1953 (“LA”)
(ii) Sec 6 (2)
“An action for an account shall not be brought in respect of any
matter which arose more than six years before the commencement
of the action”

(iii) Sec 6 (3)

“An action upon any judgment shall not be brought after the expiration of twelve
years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable and no arrears of
interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six
years from the date on which the interest became due.”
Eg: Judgment 21/7/2020, judgment sum for eg can be enforced till 21/7/2032; but the
judgment interest will be expired at 21/7/2026 [6 yrs] (so usually litigators will enforce
the judgement within 6 years in order to enforce the interest as well)

7
NFA2010
 Limitation of Period

•LIMITATION PERIOD FOR AN ACTION AS PRESCRIBED BY

THE VARIOUS STATUTES
Limitation Act 1953 (“LA”)
(iii) Sec 6 (3) (important when file bankruptcy notice)
Cases:
United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd v Ernest Cheong Yong Yin
[2002] 2 CLJ 413 (FC)
Perwira Affin Bank Bhd v Lim Ah Hee [2004] 2 CLJ 787 (FC)
- H: the sum demanded in the bankruptcy notice was wrong as it
included statute barred interest. Altho the prov is silent on the
period of limitation claiming interest on arrears, it’s clear that the
same is limited to a period of 6 yrs which is in accordance with the
limitation act. Thrfore, the bankruptcy notice is at liberty to file in
fresh. (in the Bankruptcy act x say the limitation period on interest
arrear, so follow LA=6 yrs)

8
NFA2010
Limitation of Period

•LIMITATION PERIOD FOR AN ACTION AS

PRESCRIBED BY THE VARIOUS STATUTES
Limitation Act 1953 (“LA”)
(iv) Sec 9 (1) (in cases of ctt on land (not charged), then is 12 yrs)
“No action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of
twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him, or if it first
accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person”

Cases:
Nasri v Mesah [1971] 1 MLJ 32
- Court allowed an appeal for a specific performance in an agreement for the
sale of land for a declaration of title to the land in which it was essential to
recover the land within the period of 12 yrs
Ponnusamy & Anor v Nathu Ram [1959] MLJ 86

9
NFA2010
Limitation of Period

•LIMITATION PERIOD FOR AN ACTION AS PRESCRIBED BY THE VARIOUS

STATUTES
Limitation Act 1953 (“LA”)
(v) Sec 21 (1) (land or property, but it has to be charged or mortgaged, and in any breach, the chargee may
claim the principal sum within 12 yrs time from the date when the right to receive money accrued)
“No action shall be brought to recover any principal sum of money secured by a mortgage or other
charge on land or personal property or to enforce such mortgage or charge, or to recover proceeds
of the sale of land or personal property after the expiration of twelve years from the date when the
right to receive the money accrued.”

Cases:
Terance Simon Marbeck v Kerajaan Malaysia [2003] 6 CLJ 120
Tan Kong Min v Malaysian Nasional Insurance Sdn Bhd [2005] 3 CLJ 825 (FC)
- The primary issue in this appeal concerns the prov of the act. It’s the app’s contention that the res’
claim for the balance after sale is a claim founded on ctt and thrfore subj to the limitation of 6 yrs
under s6(1)(a) of the act, while the res contends that the claim is a claim for money secured by
charge on land. Therefore, subj to limitation period of 12 yrs under s21(1) of the act.
- Court states that having had a close look at both sections mentioned above, we are of the view that s
6 cant be applied in this case in view of the express exclusion of “any action to recover money
secured by any mortgage of or charge on land” in s 6(5)(e). The action is thrfore not founded on the
claim on ctt under s6. In our judgment, the applicabke sec is s21. S21 (1) specifically refers to an
action to recover money secured by a charge, which is an action in person, while s21(2) specifically
refers to a foreclosure action in respect of mortgage a personal prop which is an act in rem. The
limitation period is thrfore 12 yrs from the date when the right to receive money accrued or 12 yrs
from the date on which the right to foreclosure accrued.
10
NFA2010
Limitation of Period
•LIMITATION PERIODS UNDER THE LIMITATION ACT 1953

(VII)-S 22(1) [TO BE READ TOGETHER WITH S 22

(2) ]

(VII)-S 23 (EXC TO ABOVE)

11
NFA2010
Limitation of Period

•LIMITATION PERIOD FOR AN ACTION AS

PRESCRIBED BY THE VARIOUS
STATUTES
Limitation Act 1953 (“LA”)
(viii) Sec 31

12
NFA2010
Limitation of Period
•LIMITATION PERIOD UNDER PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES PROTECTION ACT 1948
-S 2(A) PAPA (ONLY WHEN IT INVOLVES THE GOV)
“….any suit, action, prosecution or other proceeding is commenced in the Federation against
any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any written
law or of any public duty or authority or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the
execution of any such written law, duty or authority the following provisions shall have effect-
 
(a)the suit, action, prosecution or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is
commenced within thirty-six months next after the act, neglect or default complained of or, in
the case of a continuance of injury or damage, within thirty-six months next after the ceasing
thereof;
(b) whenever in any such suit or action a judgment is obtained by the defendant, it shall carry
costs to be taxed as between solicitor and client;
(c) where the proceeding is a suit or action for damages, tender of amends before the suit or
action was commenced may be pleaded in lieu of or in addition to any other plea;
(d) if the suit or action is commenced after the tender or offer in writing, or is proceeded with
after payment into court of any money in satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff
does not recover more than the sum tendered, offered or paid, he shall not recover any costs
incurred after the tender, offer or payment, and the defendant shall be entitled to costs to be
taxed as between solicitor and client as from the time of the tender, offer or payment, and the
costs up to the time of such tender, offer or payment shall be in the discretion of the court:

Provided that this provision shall not affect costs on any injunction in the suit or action.

13
NFA2010
 Limitation of Period

•LIMITATION PERIOD UNDER PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION ACT 1948

-CASES:
-GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA V LEE HOCK NING [1974] AC 76
-RONALD BEADLE V HAMZAH HM SAMAN [2007] 2 MLJ 201 (CA)
-IBRAHIM BIN MOHAMAD JUTTY V TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI [2003] 5 MLJ 294
-PHUA CHIN CHEW V KM & ORS [1987] 2 MLJ 604 (SC) **** (CAN BE USED IN MENTALLY
DISORDER S24) (SUIING THE GOV)
- THE RES IS A TEACHER. HE JOINED THE GOV IN TEACHING SERVICE AND HAS BEEN
CONFIRMED AS A PERMANENT TEACHER. SOMEWHR DURING HIS SERVICE, HE WAS A
GRANTED FOR A MEDICAL LEAVE AND WAS ADMITTED TO THE PSYCHYTRIC WAD OF
THE UNI HOSPITAL FOR A MENTALLY DISORDER. AFTER HE WAS DISCHARGED, HE
WAS BEING TRANSFERRED TO SEKOLAH JENIS KEBANGSAAN MELAKA, WHR HE WAS
AGAIN ILL AND ADMITTED ONCE AGAIN FOR KISOFENIA(IDK). WHILE LABELLING
FOR THAT SAID SICKNESS, HE WROTE A LETTER TO THE APP TO RESIGN AS A
TEACHER BY GIVING 1 MONTH NOTICE. THE LETTER WAS ACCEPTED BY THE APP
WHO THEN TERMINATED HIS SERVICE(DISTINGUISH TERMINATE AND RESIGN).
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RES APPLIED TO THE COURT AND WERE APPOINTED
COMMITTEE.
- WHETHER THE TIME OF 3 YRS (36 MONTHS) BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE DATE OF
APPOINTMENT OF THE COMMITTEE, OR WHEN THE LETTER OF RESIGNATION WAS
ACCEPTED BY THE GOV
- COURT STATED THAT TIME BEGINS TO RUN FROM THE DATE OF THE APPOINTMENT
OF THE COMMITTEE (IE THE BROTHERS) AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF THE LETTER
OF RESIGNATION BEING ACCEPTED BY THE GOV, AND THE ACTION WAS WELL
WITHIN THE LIMITATION TIME OF S 2(A) OF PAPA. (WHY DATE OF COMMITTEE? CUS
THE PROV OF THE LIMITATION ACT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO PROCEEDINGS BY OR
AGAINST THE GOV IN LIKED MANNER AS THEY APPLY THE PROCEEDINGS BTW
SUBJECTS EXCEPT THAT WHR THE GOV IS A PARTY TO AN ACTION IN WHICH THE
ACTION IS TO BE BROUGHT BY THE GOV OR AGAINST THE GOV IS LIMITED TO AS
PROVIDED UNDER S2(A) OF PAPA) HAVING ARISE AT THE CONCLUSION, I FIND THAT 14
S24(1) OF LA APPLIES IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, I THRFORE FIND THAT THE P
NFA2010
WAS SUFFERING FROM A MENTAL DISABILITY WHEN HIS RIGHT OF ACTION
ACCRUED WHEN A COMMITTEE WAS APPOINTED.
Limitation of Period
•LIMITATION PERIOD UNDER CIVIL LAW ACT 1965
-DEPENDENCY CLAIM **S 7(5) CLA [READ S 7 (1), S 7 (2), S 7 (3)]

“Not more than one action shall be brought for and in respect of the same subject matter of complaint, and every
such action shall be brought within three years after the death of the person DECEASED.” (client has no one to
depend on already, then can claim) Eg Ali has 2 children and a wife, but he died due to an accident, then the wife
can claim, but Ali must die from the accident. The wife must prove that she and the 2 children were depending on
Ali solely when Ali was alive)
Eg: accident on 15/7/2020, and was badly injured and was hospitalised for 4 weeks until 14/8/2020, discharged
then died at home on 15/8 due to the accident after post mortem found out.
Cause of action: 15/8/2020 (when he died) [contrast with s6(1)LA which in this case, it’s more on dependency
claim, but not tort claim
-CASES:
-s.7(3) states on who can claim
-KUAN HIP PENG V YAP YIN & ANOR [1965] MLJ 252 (CAN USE ALSO FOR A COURT HAS NO POWER TO ENLARGE LIMITATION OF PERIOD)
- COURT STATED THAT THE RULE THAT WHR THERE R EXCEPTIONS WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE OPERATION OF A
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, A P DID NOT COMPLETE THAT UNTIL A DEFENCE OF A LIMITATION HAS BEEN RAISED ON A
PLEADING BY THE DEF. THE PROV OF S7(5) OF CLA ARE ABSOLUTE AND CONTAIN NO EXCEPTIONS. THRFORE, THE WRIT
WHICH WAS FILED AND ISSUED FOR DAYS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF 3 YRS MUST BE STRUCK OUT AND THE
STATEMENT OF CLAIM FILED IN COURT BY THE P IS THRFORE JUST ANOTHER ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT.
MEANS HAS TO BE DISMISSED.
WHAT IF THE DEC (ALI) FETCHED ONE OF THE KIDS (MINOR), AMINAH, AND ALI DIEAD IMMEDIATELY, BUT AMINAH
HOSPITALISED. CAN AMINAH (MINOR) SUE FOR COST OF PERSONAL INJURIES, AND DEPENDENCY CLAIM TGT WITH THE
MOM AND BRO?
MOM CAN CLAIM PERSONAL INJURIES ON BEHALF OF AMINAH, BUT IN TERMS OF DEPENDENCY CLAIM, THEN IS 3 YRS BUT
NOT 6 YRS (UNDER S7(5) BUT NOT S6(1) LA)
WHAT IF AMINAH NO MOM?
- AS AMINAH IS A MINOR, THE NEXT OF KIN (UNCLE AND SO ON) CAN HELP AMINAH AS A MINOR TO TAKE ACTION FOR
BOTH OF THE DEPENDENCY CLAIM AND PERSONAL INJURIES, BUT NEED CONSENT FROM HER.
- HOWEVER, IF AMINAH WANTS TO USE S 24(1) OF LA, FOR THE DEPENDENCY CLAIM AS THE PERIOD WONT PAUSE
DESPITE SHES A MINOR AS IN S7(5) OF CLA, THE PERIOD IS STRICTLY CANT BE EXTENDED, SO S 24 DOESN’T WORK HERE.
- S BUT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, IF SHE WISHES TO USE S 24 AS NO PERSON IS ABLE TO ACT FOR AMINAH WHEN SHE
WAS A MINOR, SHE WILL ONLY GET HER CLAIM ONCE SHE TURNS MAJOR FOR PERSONAL INJURIES ONLY AS THE RIGTH
TO SUE WILL ONLY RISE ONCE SHE TURNS INTO A MAJOR, BUT FOR DEPENDENCY CLAIM, THEN THE TIME WONT PAUSE.
15
NFA2010
Limitation of Period
•LIMITATION PERIOD UNDER CIVIL LAW ACT
1965

-Court has no power to enlarge time

-Cases:
-Kuan Hip Peng v Yap Yin & Anor [1965] MLJ 252 (s
7(5) CLA)

-Lee Lee Cheng v Seow Peng Kwai (1960) MLJ 1

(s 8(3) CLA)

-Mat bin Lim v Ho Yut Kam [1967] 1 MLJ 13

(s 8(3) CLA)

16
NFA2010
 Limitation of Period
•LIMITATION PERIOD UNDER CIVIL LAW ACT 1965
-S8(3)(B)-ACTION AGAINST ESTATE OF DECEASED
TORTFEASOR [READ S 8(1) , S 8 (2)]
“No proceedings shall be maintainable in respect of a cause of
action in tort which by virtue of this section has survived
against the estate of a deceased person, unless proceedings
against him in respect of that cause of action either-
(a) were pending at the date of his death; or
(b) are taken not later than six months after his personal
representative took out representation”

Estate of deceased cant be sued unless the letter of administration is complete.

If in the situation whr the letter of administration was not yet done whr the estate of the
dec has delayed, which caused the time to lapsed, according to O13, the P can put in an
interlocutory app as the estate of the dec, to take out the letter of administration as the
estate of the dec.

17
NFA2010
To be continued…