ABDUL HANIF BIN ABDULLAH ALLYPLUS SDN BHD (DI DALAM LIKUIDASI)

ABDUL HANIF BIN ABDULLAH ALLYPLUS SDN BHD (DI DALAM LIKUIDASI)

The Court held the claim was a contractual claim for payment of the purchase price arising from the SPA dated 11.6.2003; such a claim accrued then and was barred after six years under Limitation Act 1953 s6(1)(a). The High Court erred in treating the matter as one where limitation did not operate under Khatijah, because the present dispute was a breach of contract for payment not a transfer dependent solely on an unfulfilled statutory condition precedent; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the High Court decision set aside.

Citation
W-02(NCVC)(A)-653-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Abdul Hanif bin Abdullah; Respondent/plaintiff: Allyplus Sdn Bhd (in liquidation)
Court
NCVC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 August 2020
Case Number
W-02(NCVC)(A)-653-04/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court / Appeal Judgment on Originating Summons
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside
Legal Topics
Sale and Purchase Agreement, Winding Up/liquidator Actions, Limitation Act 1953, Originating Summons Conversion, Condition Precedent to Transfer
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Company Law Limitation Land Law Civil Procedure Sale and Purchase Agreement Winding Up/liquidator Actions Limitation Act 1953 +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Hanif bin Abdullah

Appellant/defendant

Allyplus Sdn Bhd (in liquidation)

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court / Appeal Judgment on Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sale and Purchase Agreement was completed and who holds ownership/title
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim for the purchase price is time‑barred under the Limitation Act 1953 s6(1)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the originating summons was an improper procedure requiring conversion to writ action

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the claim was a contractual claim for payment of the purchase price arising from the SPA dated 11.6.2003; such a claim accrued then and was barred after six years under Limitation Act 1953 s6(1)(a). The High Court erred in treating the matter as one where limitation did not operate under Khatijah, because the present dispute was a breach of contract for payment not a transfer dependent solely on an unfulfilled statutory condition precedent; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the High Court decision set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • High Court decision set aside