LEE KIM NOOR TETUAN KN LEE & ASSOCIATES 1. JULIAN CHONG SOOK KEONG 2. ASMAH BINTI MAT

LEE KIM NOOR TETUAN KN LEE & ASSOCIATES 1. JULIAN CHONG SOOK KEONG 2. ASMAH BINTI MAT

The Court allowed the appeal because the High Court failed to address limitation; held the cause of action in tort accrued when the SPA was executed (06.04.2004 or 22.04.2004) or when the full purchase price was paid (26.05.2004), therefore the six‑year limitation under s6 ran from those dates and the 2015 suit was time‑barred; s29 was not pleaded; High Court judgment was set aside.

Citation
P-02(NCvC)(W)-1352-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: LEE KIM NOOR; Appellant/defendant: TETUAN KN LEE & ASSOCIATES; Respondent/plaintiff: JULIAN CHONG SOOK KEONG; Respondent/plaintiff: ASMAH BINTI MAT
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 February 2021
Case Number
P-02(NCvC)(W)-1352-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; costs to appellants
Legal Topics
Limitation Act 1953 S6, Accrual of Cause of Action, Negligent Misstatement, Land Search Obligations, Duty of Care of Solicitors, Section 29 Limitation Act Exception
Source Language
Malay/English
Tort Professional Negligence Property Law Contract Law Limitation Law Limitation Act 1953 S6 Accrual of Cause of Action Negligent Misstatement +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE KIM NOOR

Appellant/defendant

TETUAN KN LEE & ASSOCIATES

Appellant/defendant

JULIAN CHONG SOOK KEONG

Respondent/plaintiff

ASMAH BINTI MAT

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs' negligence claim was time‑barred under s6 Limitation Act 1953
  2. 2 When the cause of action for professional negligence accrued
  3. 3 Whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs and breached it

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal because the High Court failed to address limitation; held the cause of action in tort accrued when the SPA was executed (06.04.2004 or 22.04.2004) or when the full purchase price was paid (26.05.2004), therefore the six‑year limitation under s6 ran from those dates and the 2015 suit was time‑barred; s29 was not pleaded; High Court judgment was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; costs to appellants

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Decision of the High Court dated 13.8.2019 set aside