Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Extension of time (eot) under hdr 1989

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2022

OBATA-AMBAK HOLDINGS SDN BHD PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1204-06/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-1204-06/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The plaintiff’s pleaded case challenged the validity of the SPAs from inception by alleging the delivery period was unlawfully amended from 36 to 54 months; therefore the contractual breach (and cause of action) accrued on execution of the SPAs in July 2012, triggering the six-year limitation which expired in July 2018. The action filed in June 2020 was time‑barred and both appeals were dismissed.
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.