Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accrual of cause of action

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

1. ) ARWIN SHANT A/L MURALI KRISHNAN 2. ) VIGNESWARY A/P SIMMACHALAM 3. ) S VIJAYALACHEMY A/P R SUBRAMANIAM MISC BERHAD

Citation

WA-11ANCvC-50-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11ANCvC-50-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On proper construction clauses 6 and 7.3 read together show liability arose by operation of the contract upon the cadet's breach (deemed breach under clause 6); clause 7.3 merely regulates enforcement by requiring demand, it does not postpone the accrual of the cause of action; therefore limitation ran from the date of breach (17 October 2017) and the action commenced on 13 November 2024 was statute-barred; alternatively, respondent's unexplained and inordinate delay attracts laches; respondent also failed to discharge burden of proving the asserted demand or to exhibit the Agreement.
28 Jan 2026

KIAN HENG GROUP SDN BHD CF BATTERY ENTERPRISE

Citation

JF-A72NCC-196-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JF-A72NCC-196-09/2025 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The claim was struck out because the cause of action accrued on the invoice date 6.7.2019, the suit filed on 3.9.2025 was beyond the six-year limitation under s.6 Limitation Act 1953, the pleadings failed to particularise any factual basis to avoid the limitation, and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action for the purposes of Order 18 r.19(1)(a).
24 Nov 2025

1. ) Tan Lai Whatt Sebastian 2. ) Yau Wai Kin 3. ) MRS KOH BEE GEOK NEE TAN 4. ) HENG CHO KHEE 5. ) HOWE SOO LIAN 6. ) Lee Yong Yeow 7. ) Audrey Teoh Jo Ann 8. ) Phua Kie Hwee 9. ) ALBERT LEONG KUM HOONG 10. ) WONG YUN HAR MIRANDA 11. ) WON

Citation

BA-22NCvC-219-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-219-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the 48‑month completion period runs from the date of receipt of the earnest deposit monies by the agent (Messrs NK Tan & Rahim) from the purchasers; the cause of action to claim LAD accrues on the date the purchaser takes vacant possession or the developer completes common facilities and therefore the Plaintiffs are not challenging the validity of SPA clauses such that the claims are not time‑barred; Plaintiffs entitled to LAD quantified per agreed Table A, with interest and costs as ordered.
26 Sept 2025

MISC BERHAD 1. ) ARWIN SHANT A/L MURALI KRISHNAN 2. ) VIGNESWARY A/P SIMMACHALAM 3. ) S VIJAYALACHEMY A/P R SUBRAMANIAM

Citation

WA-A72NCvC-5626-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

WA-A72NCvC-5626-11/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Clause 7.3 is a contractual condition precedent making liability contingent upon demand; therefore the cause of action accrued on issuance of demand on 2 January 2024 and the writ filed in November 2024 was within the six-year limitation period, so the striking-out application fails.
27 Aug 2025

A MAGENDRAN A/L ARUMUGAM HANISAH BEGUM BINTI M. NAGOOR HASHAN

Citation

JA-11ANCC-3-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-11ANCC-3-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The cause of action accrued on 25.6.2015 (date payment was due); the 2017 transactions did not satisfy Sections 26 or 27 Limitation Act 1953 because there was no written signed acknowledgment by the respondent nor evidence of agency, novation or variation; therefore the action was time-barred and the Magistrate correctly allowed dismissal under Order 18 Rule 19(1) KKM 2012.
26 Mar 2025

WONG CHEE KIAN 1. ) ANDREW NG KWANG YAN 2. ) SHAREEN FIZA BINTI ARSHAD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-4-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-4-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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.
24 Feb 2025

PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN PELANGI DAMANSARA 1 BLOK D, E & F HOKAWAI & ASSOCIATES

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-684-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-684-08/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The claim was time-barred because the cause of action accrued in 2009 when the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged misappropriation and all material facts and thus the statutory limitation periods under s.6 and s.6A had expired prior to filing in 2024; the plaintiff's assertion of piecemeal discovery in 2021 did not displace earlier accrual given contemporaneous correspondence and a 2009 police report showing knowledge.
3 Feb 2025

Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara (SPAN) Eco Sky Development Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-B52-61-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52-61-07/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held that under Peraturan 2011 the relevant "harga jualan" for calculating KWSMP is determined by the sale status as at the date of submission of the final inspection notice (29.11.2017); the plaintiff's cause of action only accrued when full supporting documents were produced on 02.10.2023 so the claim is not time‑barred; defendant under‑declared and owes RM660,639.70, plus interest and costs.
22 Mar 2024

CHANDIRASEGARAN A/L RAMASAMY AMGENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

Citation

WA-11ANCC-17-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-11ANCC-17-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed that the plaintiff had privity of contract but the claim was dismissed because (1) the cause of action accrued on the date of the insured event (7.9.2016) under an indemnity/benefit policy, making the writ filed on 29.9.2022 time-barred under s6 Limitation Act 1953, and (2) the policy's Exclusion 1 properly excludes death occurring "in connection with" the commission of an unlawful act (riding without a valid licence) therefore insurer validly repudiated liability; Section 7(3B) Civil Law (Amendment) Act 2019 is inapplicable to contractual claims.
19 Feb 2024

1. ) AHAD JOHARI BIN DAWOD 2. ) MUSTAFFA BIN IBRAHIM BINA SEMPURNA (M) SDN BHD

Citation

AA-A72NCvC-530-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AA-A72NCvC-530-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Court held on the balance of probabilities that delivery was delayed; clause 10.1 must be read in context and, because plaintiff paid cash and defendant commenced works without valid justification or notice of delay, the 24-month period runs from the date of the building agreement (11.09.2013) not from plan approval; liquidated damages therefore accrued upon actual delivery (15.01.2019) and the claim was not time‑barred, entitling plaintiff to the contractual LAD calculated at RM41,862.58.