Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation act 1953

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2025

Mentari Business Park JMB mentari properties sdn bhd

Citation

BA-22NCVC-354-06/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCVC-354-06/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted allocation of 15.7% of combined TNB billings to the car parks and relied on the actual aggregate TNB bills (RM2,231,746.38) as the best evidence to assess damages, resulting in assessed damages of RM350,384.18; the Limitation Act defence was not applied because it had not been pleaded on liability.
3 Jul 2025

1. ) FLORIE PHILOMINA A/P S G DORAI RAJ 2. ) ABDUL OOVAISE BIN M MOHAMED IQBAL 1. ) KAVITA A/P J S ANANDAM 2. ) NIK NUR SYARLIN BINTI NIK ISMAIL

Citation

BA-22NCvC-459-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-459-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court found the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim was scandalous, frivolous and an abuse of court process because the plaintiffs failed to establish a viable cause of action against the defendants for invalidating the 2nd Power of Attorney or the transfer to D2; documentary evidence showed P2 did not deny the PA and D2 purchased as a bona fide purchaser, thus the defendants' striking out applications were allowed under Order 18 Rule 19 and the plaintiffs' case was struck out with costs.
14 Mar 2025

Baguda (M) Sdn. Bhd. Brady Technology Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

PA-22NCvC-183-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-183-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove either mutual mistake or actionable misrepresentation as to the Annex Building's built-up area; the evidence showed knowledge and assent by the Plaintiff (approval/signing of submission drawings and tenancy documents, involvement in preparation), therefore the agreements are valid and binding, including the option renewals; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the Defendant's counterclaim allowed with costs, but specified damages claims in paragraphs 38(h) and (i) were not granted.
21 Feb 2025

JMB MASKIARA RESIDENCES INTAN PERMATA PROPERTIES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-371-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-371-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the Plaintiff's claim constituted a running account and thus was not time-barred by the Limitation Act 1953; the Plaintiff validly charged based on the 2012 share unit calculation because the Defendant failed to provide SiFUS and related certified documents; the Defendant remains liable for outstanding charges relating to sold units for arrears accruing prior to sale (19 units identified); and late payment interest at 10% per annum as applied by the Plaintiff's accounting system is allowed; costs awarded to Plaintiff RM20,000 (subject to allocatur).
23 May 2024

NGAN TIAM MING NGAN THEAM SHING

Citation

WA-12BNCvC-61-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12BNCvC-61-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeals dismissed because the trial judge correctly applied limitation law to bar pre-24 December 2014 account claims, found no evidence of proprietary rights to the Gombak Stalls or reliable documentary proof for Shophouse rentals given the family arrangements, properly excluded 'without prejudice' negotiation evidence and found the tax payment and jewellery claims unproven; the trial judge's factual findings were supported by reasons and not plainly wrong.
7 Feb 2024

1. ) CHEN KEAN KEONG 2. ) CHEEN LOOI BENG 1. ) CHEN YOOK YIN 2. ) KOPERASI TUNAS MUDA SUNGAI ARA BERHAD

Citation

PA-22NCVC-205-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-205-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the plaintiffs had knowledge of the alleged fraud by at least 16.05.2013 (police report) and 22.07.2013 (demand notice); the writ filed on 24.09.2019 was therefore outside the six‑year limitation under s6 read with s29 Limitation Act 1953. Cooperative membership does not constitute trust property under the cooperative bylaws, so s22(1) does not save the claims. The claims against Defendant Two (and consequentially Defendant One) were struck out as time‑barred and an abuse of process; costs RM1500 awarded to D2.
16 Mar 2023

SHARIFAH BINTI ZAINUDDIN 1. ) ONG BEE EAN 2. ) GAN SHANG YUH 3. ) MILAN CREST SDN BHD

Citation

PA-22NCvC-126-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-126-07/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The claim, on its face, sought cancellation of the grant of probate and therefore constituted a probate proceeding requiring strict compliance with Order 72; because no citation was ever issued the plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory procedure and the claim is defective and must be dismissed. Applying Order 33 r.2 the court disposed of the application without trial and allowed the defendants' applications with costs.
1 Nov 2022

BUKIT KINDING COUNTRY HOMES SDN BHD 1. ) HIGHBASE MILLENNIUM REALTY SDN BHD 2. ) LEE HENG 3. ) LEE CHEE FOOK

Citation

AA-24NCC-8-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-24NCC-8-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie bona fide dispute over the sums claimed in the statutory demands because the defendants failed to particularise or prove their asserted entitlements, many claims appeared time-barred and there were credible allegations of conflicting fiduciary/ trustee arrangements; therefore the Fortuna injunction was justified to restrain presentation of winding-up petitions based on those notices.
18 Oct 2021

SELAMAT BIN MUHAMMAD YUSOF SUPPIAH 1. MOHD FAZLIE BIN ABDULLAH 2. AZMAN BIN HJ SALIEHAN 3. JACKSON ANDREW

Citation

JB-23NCVC-2-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-23NCVC-2-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Judge allowed the appeal, holding the Amended Statement of Claim sued the 2nd and 3rd defendants in their personal capacities so PAPA s.2 did not apply; limitation under s.6 Limitation Act 1953 governs and the cause of action accrued October 2014 making the writ filed September 2020 within time; the Registrar's order striking out claims against the 2nd and 3rd defendants was set aside and the writ and statement of claim were restored.
1 Sept 2021

BHAJAN SINGH A/L PARKASH SINGH (trading under the name and style of BHAJAN SINGH A/L PARKASH SINGH (Registration No.: JM0105634-U) MOHD SEHAT BIN MAHMUD

Citation

JB-11B-1-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-11B-1-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Magistrate properly exercised discretion in refusing leave because the appellant failed to provide sufficient and cogent reasons for delay beyond the six-year limitation; the unexplained delay amounted to laches and the application constituted an abuse of process; appeal dismissed with costs.