26 Mar 2025
The court held that the cause of action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty accrued in 2017 when the impugned acts occurred; under Limitation Act 1953 s6(1) the six-year limitation expired before the 12/6/2024 filing, therefore the claim is time barred and the appeal must be dismissed.
7 Feb 2024
The court found the plaintiffs had knowledge of the alleged fraud by 16.05.2013 (police report) and issued notices in July 2013; the six-year limitation under s6 read with s29 expired before the writ was filed on 24.09.2019. The cooperative membership did not constitute trust property within s22 and therefore the s22 exception did not apply. The claim against Defendant 2 was time-barred and, being plainly unsustainable and an abuse of process, was struck out. Consequentially claims against Defendant 1 were also time-barred and could not be maintained. Costs RM1500 awarded.
12 Jan 2024
The court held the cause of action accrued at the time the JB Conspiracy Suit was filed (28.01.2016) and, at the latest, upon dissolution of KK Lim & Associates on 28.05.2016; the six-year limitation expired before the plaintiff's suit was filed on 23.02.2023; consequently the claim was time-barred and properly struck out under O18 r19 ROC 2012 and dismissed with costs.
3 Mar 2023
Time ran from the dates the alleged negligence and damage occurred (10.11.2014 and 11.11.2014); the plaintiff's claimed mental and emotional injuries constitute personal injury; Limitation Act 1953 s6A does not apply because it is limited to negligence not involving personal injury and aimed at latent construction/property damage; consequently the action filed on 25.1.2021 was time-barred and the writ and statement of claim as against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants were struck out as an abuse of process under Order 18 r19(1)(d).
3 Mar 2023
Time began to run from the dates the alleged misdiagnoses and misadvice occurred (10.11.2014 for D3/D4 and 11.11.2014 for D2); the six‑year limitation in s6 expired in November 2020; s6A does not apply because the plaintiff’s pleaded injuries (mental, emotional and hypertension) amount to personal injury and s6A is confined to negligence not involving personal injury (notably latent construction/property damage); the claim filed 25.1.2021 was therefore time‑barred and an abuse of process, justifying strike out under O18 r19.
20 Jul 2022
The SPA was a contingent contract conditioned upon the registration of the 1st transfer within a fixed 7 + 7 month period; that contingency did not occur within the fixed time and time was of the essence, therefore under the law on contingent contracts (section 36 principle) the SPA became void; accordingly the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance failed and the defendants’ counterclaim succeeds.
2 Mar 2022
The Court struck out the Defendant’s claims for contribution and indemnity because they are contractual in substance and premised on a payment agreement to which the 3rd Party was not a party (privity defect) and no facts justify implying an indemnity; however the Defendant’s unjust enrichment claim raises triable issues (including accrual date and whether payment related to Defendant’s work) and is therefore not suitable for striking out and must proceed to trial.
24 Feb 2021
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.