Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cause of action accrual

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2026

MANAF BIN BEDO LADANG RAKYAT TRENGGANU SDN BHD

Citation

TA-12BNCvC-3-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

TA-12BNCvC-3-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the cause of action accrued by 2012 (subject to s.6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953) and the writ filed in 2023 was time-barred; alternatively, even on the merits the 2009 minutes created an unfulfilled condition precedent (break-even by 2012) and the 2010 minutes merely allocated funds to manager and staff rather than creating an immediate, enforceable personal obligation to pay the plaintiff RM300,000; the Sessions Court's factual findings were open to it and are affirmed.
29 Sept 2025

1. ) CHIA YANG HOCK 2. ) CHIA YONG HAK 3. ) CHIA YONG PENG TETUAN TAY & PARTNERS

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-6-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the claim solely on affidavit material because the accrual date of the cause of action in tort could be when actual damage was suffered (loss of access in early 2023), and material disputed factual issues (professional negligence, alleged fraud, effect of 2003 judgment, status of strata title and partnership liability) require oral evidence and assessment at full trial; therefore the claim was not obviously unsustainable and must be remitted to trial.
6 Nov 2024

MINETECH ASPHALT MAN INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD PEMBINAAN MUTHIAH & SONS (M) SDN BHD

Citation

BA-11BNCvC-32-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11BNCvC-32-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the trial judge's factual finding that the defects work was completed in August 2015 was supported by documentary evidence (P13,P14) and credible witness testimony (PW2); the defendant's failure to object to that evidence cured the pleading omission, the onus of proof shifted and was not discharged by the defendant, and the cause of action accrued on completion in August 2015 so the claim brought on 13-7-2021 was not time-barred.
16 Feb 2024

IMEC JAYA SDN. BHD. GREATEARTH APG SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-22NCvC-301-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-301-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found the dealings were ad hoc not a running account; cause of action accrued on expiry of invoice payment terms so invoices dated 2002–18 July 2014 are time-barred; plaintiff failed to prove existence of agreement, receipt/acknowledgment of many invoices, and failed to prove special damages due to duplicate entries, accounting errors and unreliable witness evidence; therefore plaintiff failed to discharge burden on balance of probabilities and the claim is dismissed with costs.
7 Apr 2023

Ong Bing Hong 1. ) YONG CHEN LIM 2. ) TETUAN YONG CHEN LIM & SARIDAH

Citation

MA-A52NCvC-47-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

MA-A52NCvC-47-10/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held the cause of action accrued when the plaintiff's writs were struck out (05.05.2010 and/or 05.01.2011), giving rise to loss and loss of chance; limitation under s6(1)(a) began to run from those dates and the suit filed on 05.10.2022 is time-barred. The plaintiff's long unexplained delay (including after knowledge in 2016) also amounted to laches. Accordingly the defendants' strike out application succeeded and the claim was struck out with costs.
5 Dec 2022

CHEONG HOCK @ CHEONG KIM HOCK MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

JA-12ANCvC-63-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12ANCvC-63-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the Sessions Court erred in disposing of the action under Order 33 r.2 & r.5: material facts and the contractual terms governing the fixed deposits were not pleaded or evidenced sufficiently to determine when the cause of action accrued; therefore summary dismissal was inappropriate and the matter must be remitted for full trial.
11 Jun 2021

AVANTGARDE ARENA SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 200301026310 / 628730-W) PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 200601036174 / 755933-K)

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-260-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCVC-260-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeals dismissed because plaintiffs' causes of action accrued on execution of the SPAs (incorporating the pre-existing EOT), claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act 1953, the challenge to the EOT raised public law issues proper to judicial review (and was brought out of time), and the writ claims were frivolous/abuse of process (including a prior settlement in Guaman 260); the Sessions Court decisions were therefore correctly upheld.
21 Jul 2020

Tenaga Nasional Berhad Choong Liang Construction Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-11ANCVC-200-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11ANCVC-200-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the claim is a statutory recovery under s.38 ESA and loss occurred over a period, the cause of action accrues day-to-day from the commencement of loss (1.3.2009) to discovery (11.2.2014); only the portion older than six years is time-barred so striking out the entire claim was wrong and the appeal is allowed.
19 Feb 2020

KALAIVANI A/P SINNASAMY 1. ) TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD 2. ) PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH PETALING

Citation

BA-B51-5-10/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BA-B51-5-10/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court set aside the writ and statement of claim because the plaintiff's claim was time-barred under PAPA s.2(a) and the Limitation Act, the plaintiff lacked locus standi as not a registered proprietor under the National Land Code, the acts of the State authority were protected under s.22 KTN and performed bona fide, the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction over disputed land ownership, and the State Director/Pejabat Daerah was incorrectly named as defendant.
25 Oct 2019

LIN KAI LAM (NO. K/P : 570928-10-5219) WONG SOU FUAN (NO. K/P : 600728-10-5788) COLIN ANDREW PEREIRA (NO. K/P : 670728-10-6223)

Citation

WA-22NCVC-565-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCVC-565-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused the defendant's strike out application: the plaintiffs' solicitor negligence claim was a distinct cause of action from the defendant's separate fee claims, res judicata and abuse of process did not apply given differing causes, facts and required evidence, and limitation could not be assumed to have started on the consent order date because clause 4 required further settlement arrangements; factual and witness evidence were necessary, therefore summary dismissal under Order 18 r19 was inappropriate.