1.

Limitation Act 1953

Provision Actions Period From the date of Cases (Time barred or not?)

S 6(1)(a) Contract 6 years cause of action accrued, # Board of Trade v Cayzer, Irvine & Co
LA 1953 this is the date of the
breach of contract

*letter of demand is
irrelevant
S 6(1)(a) Tort 6 years cause of action accrued, 1. Personal Injuries
LA 1953 this is the date of the # Cartledge v Jopling
commission of tort -disease which slowly caused damage to his health
(damage) -time start when P first contracted lung disease
-realised only after 20 years

2. Defective/ damages to building

# Pirelli Cable Works v Oscar
-time start when first hairline cracks appear
-lack of knowledge and latent damage is irrelevant
-COA accrued at the date the cracks on the chimney occurred
and not when P could diligently have discovered it.

3. Defendant’s Identity unknown/ untraceable

# Credit Corporation v Fong Tak Sin
-time start from the date of damage although P ignorant of D’s
identity

S 6(3) LA 1953 Judgement 12 years which judgement

become enforceable
S 9(1) LA 1953 Recover Land 12 years which the right of # Munah v Fatimah
action accrues -P want to take back title after 19 years
-P is in occupation & had paid the price
*recover -possession, -D held it on bare trust for purchaser P
regaining something loss -Time did not begin to run at all
(ownership, specific
performance) # Nasri v Mesah
-time start when the time refuse to transfer (the date of
*enforce a sale & infringement / threat of infringement of appellant’s right)
purchase agreement -recover of land is construed broadly
S20 LA 1953 Recover Rent 6 years which the arrears
become due

S21 (1) LA 1953 Recover 12 years the right to receive the

principle secure money accrued
by charge/
enforce such a
charge

S22 (1) LA 1953 (a) Fraudulent No # Palaniappa Chettiar V Lakshamanan Chettiar

breach of limitation -limitation will not arise if it is an action to recover trust property
trust + Privy by virtue of S 22(1)(b)
(b) Recovery of
trust
property

S22 (2) LA 1953 Breach of 6 years which the right of action # Koh Siew Keng v Koh Heng Jing
Trusts accrues
S23 LA 1953 Personal Estate 12 years The date when the right
of Deceased to receive any share or
person interest in such estate
accrued
(under will/
intestacy)
 Exceptions

S24 (1) LA 1953 S26 LA 1953 S 29 LA 1953

Extension of time is automatically
available for persons under disability
-P must be suffering from a disability at the
time the right of action accrued.
Fresh Accrual of the right of action from the
date of acknowledgement or last payment
3 situations. Right of action to:-
Postponement of Limitation
Time start to run when P has discovered the
fraud/ mistake or could with reasonable
diligence have discovered it. 3 conditions:-

S 2(2) LA1953
S26 (1) (a) LA 1953 S 27 (1) LA 1953 S 29(a) LA 1953
Person under
1. Recover land - -acknowledgement
disability:- 1. Action is based on fraud of D or his agent
-acknowledge shall be in writing
+ signed (claims to be)

infant unsound mind S26 (1) (b) LA 1953

# Yam Kong Seng v S 29 (b) LA 1953
2. Enforce the charge
Yee Weng Kai 2. The right of action is concealed by fraud
-payment
Disability cease: Disability cease: -acknowledgement
# Sivaperan v Lim Yoke Fong
S26 (2) LA 1953 by SMS fulfil S27 (1)
1. After 18 yo 1. Get certificate of sane -hit & run, insurer fraudulently concealed P’s
3. Recover -Enforceable under
2. Die 2. Die right of action
debt/liquidated Electronic
3. Appointment of -standard of proof required only
pecuniary claim Commerce
committee to look unconscionable conduct suffices
-acknowledge / Act 2006
after his affair -P‘s action is not time barred
#Phua Chin Chew v payment
KM & Ors
#Tenaga Nasional Bhd
S24 LA 1953 should S 29 (c) LA 1953
v Pearl Island Resort &
be read into 3. The action is for relief from the consequences
Development Sdn Bhd
PAPA1948. of a mistake
“Person liable/
accountable thereof” #Credit Corp v Fong Tak Sin
Under S26 (2) covers - Mistake must be an essential ingredient of cause
1. principle debtor of action
2. guarantor # Phillips-Higgins v Harper
S29 did not apply as the mistake was not due to
fraud or unconscionable conduct.
 2. S2 Public Authorities Protection Act 1948
This protection is only available for
“act done in pursuance of execution of “
any written law/ public duty/ authority
 Person to be sued:
Against Any Person (agents of Government)
 Computation of time
S2 (a) PAPA 1948:
36 months from the act/ neglect/ default
# Lee Hock Ning v Government of Malaysia
-building works of schools for government &
claim balance sum after 3 years
-non-payment of monies was not a public duty
under s2 PAPA
-there was a breach of contact. S6 (1) LA 1953
applied

# Kobchai Sosothikul (wakil harta pusaka Boonsom Boonyanit) v

Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Pulau Pinang

-The intention of parliament is very clear from unambiguous words in

S2(a) PAPA 1948.
-There is no room for the exercise of judicial discretion to extend time.

S97 Railways Act 1991 provides that PAPA 1948 shall apply to any action
against KTM / any of its officer in respect of any act/ neglect / default.

# Veerasingam v KTMB- S97 RA 1991 follows S2 PAPA 1948.

Disability cases

Not time bared Time barred

# Phua Chin Chew & Ors v K.M. & Ors # Kuan Hip Ping v Yap Yin & Anor

-government school teacher resign under disability as
mentally unsound
-disability ceased when his brother was appointed as his
personal representative to look after his affair
-PAPA 1948 does not provide for cases of disability
-S24 LA 1953 should be read into PAPA1948.
-Limitation 36 months only begin after disability ceased.
-CLA 1956 is enacted after LA 1953.
-Parliament’s intention not to create the exceptions
for disability.
-The terms of S7(5) Civil Law Act 1956 are absolute
and no exceptions.
 3. Civil Law Act 1956

Dependency Claims Types Estate Claims

S 7(5) Civil Law Act 1956 Provision S 8(3) Civil Law Act 1956

3 years Time 6 months

After the death of person Starting After his personal representation

point (administer/ executer) took out letters of
representation

Precise 1. Tortious claim

scopes 2. Against the defendant’s estate

# Kuan Hip Ping v Yap Yin & Anor
-P still a minor when his father died.
-P claimed 3 years 4 days after.
-action was time bared.
-The terms of S7(5) Civil Law Act 1956
are absolute and no exceptions.
Cases # Lee Lee Cheng v Seow Peng Kwong
-Action was commenced after 6 months
after letter of representation is taken
-S 8(3) give no power to courts to extend
the limitation of 6 months
Can also maintained if proceedings against
deceased D were pending at the date of
his death

Defence must be pleased

 S4 Limitation Act 1953
 O18, r.8 ROC 2012

Defence of Limitation
(Tasja Sdn Bhd v Golden Approach Sdn Bhd)

Must be pleased Need Not Plead Need Not Plead

-Under Limitation Act -S2(a) PAPA 1948 -Civil Law Act 1956
(limitation is not absolute) - (period of limitation is (period of limitation is
as required by S4 LA 1953 absolute) absolute)

# Tasja Sdn Bhd v Golden Approach Sdn Bhd

 Techniques answering question:

1. Provision
2. Time
3. Starting point
4. Time barred or not?

When remedies is unsure Remedies Known

(transfer of Land)
1. 1. Why choosing one Act over another. 1. 1. Which session?
2.
2. 2. What remedies P want? 3.
If not mentioned, discuss both Acts.
“IF THEN” technique will be used.

3. 3. What is the starting point?

4. –if s6 applies, COA accrued when the time of
breach
5. –if s9 applies, first clear and unequivocal
threats of P’s right