MARIAM BINTI SHAIK MOHD OMAR v ONG CHIN POH

MARIAM BINTI SHAIK MOHD OMAR v ONG CHIN POH

Following binding Federal Court authority, the defendant was entitled to rely on a limitation defence in the strike-out application; the defence was sufficiently pleaded by stating the claim was statute-barred without naming the Limitation Act; the plaintiff did not plead nuisance or a continuing cause of action, therefore the claim was time-barred and the Sessions Court order striking out the claim was correct.

Citation
MARIAM BINTI SHAIK MOHD OMAR v ONG CHIN POH
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Mariam binti Shaik Mohd Omar; Respondent/defendant: Ong Chin Poh
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Striking Out of Summons and Statement of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Limitation Defence, Pleading Requirements, Continuous Nuisance, Locus Standi
Source Language
en
Practice and Procedure Tort Property Law Limitation Law Strike Out Application Limitation Defence Pleading Requirements Continuous Nuisance +1 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mariam binti Shaik Mohd Omar

Appellant/plaintiff

Ong Chin Poh

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Striking Out of Summons and Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defendant may rely on a limitation defence in an application to strike out a claim under O.14 r.21 SCR / O.18 r.19 RHC
  2. 2 Whether the Limitation Act 1953 must be expressly pleaded by name
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff pleaded a continuing nuisance so as to avoid limitation

Ratio Decidendi

Following binding Federal Court authority, the defendant was entitled to rely on a limitation defence in the strike-out application; the defence was sufficiently pleaded by stating the claim was statute-barred without naming the Limitation Act; the plaintiff did not plead nuisance or a continuing cause of action, therefore the claim was time-barred and the Sessions Court order striking out the claim was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of Sessions Court striking out the summons and statement of claim affirmed