Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statutory limitation

Legal area

Court

20 Jun 2025

1. ) VIKNEIS A/L BALAN (SEORANG PESAKIT MENDAKWA MELALUI BALAN A/L VARATHARAJOO SEBAGAI WAKIL LITIGASI/SAHABAT WAKIL) 2. ) BALAN A/L VARATHARAJOO TETUAN NM TIONG & CO

Citation

PA-12ANCvC-31-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCvC-31-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court allowed the appeal because the Plaintiff failed to show statutory leave under section 124 LPA before commencing the Sessions Court action (a condition precedent rendering the suit incompetent), the Defendants demonstrated special circumstances warranting judicial scrutiny of the Bill of Costs despite the lapse under section 128(2) LPA, and the Sessions Court erred in awarding interest under section 11 CLA when section 133 LPA assigns interest in solicitor-and-client taxation to the Registrar; accordingly summary judgment was wrongly entered and must be set aside and remitted fo…
9 Jan 2025

SIM FOO YOKE KETUA PENGARAH PERTUBUHAN KESELAMATAN SOSIAL

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1863-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1863-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to enlarge the sixty-day limitation contained in section 91(3) of the Employees' Social Security Act 1969; accordingly the plaintiff's application for extension of time to file the appeal is dismissed and the court makes no costs order.
22 Apr 2024

Tan Eng Hong Paper & Stationery Sdn Bhd 1. ) Karin Lim Ai Ching 2. ) Suppiah A/L Arumugam

Citation

PA-17D-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-17D-1-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the limitation period under s99(3A) LPA began to run from 3.6.2014 because the cause of action arose when the winding‑up petition and related events occurred earlier; the complaint filed on 13.4.2021 was therefore time‑barred; accordingly the respondents' strike‑out application succeeded and the appeal was struck out and dismissed with costs (noting that the court exercised its discretion to treat the originating summons as an originating motion for procedural convenience).
28 Jun 2023

Lembaga Perindustrian Nanas Malaysia CCA ADVERTISING SDN. BHD.

Citation

JA-12BNCvC-18-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-12BNCvC-18-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found a contract existed despite no written agreement because the Respondent's invoice constituted an offer, the Defendant accepted and used the Technical Videos constituting acceptance and consideration; P11 was a valid written acknowledgment by the Director General under ss.26(2) and 27 Limitation Act 1953 that refreshed the cause of action to 25.5.2015 making the claim filed 20.11.2017 within time; the Sessions Court's award of RM20,000 general damages was reasonable and not plainly wrong, therefore the appeal is dismissed with costs.
11 Oct 2022

Lakefront Residence Sdn Bhd 1. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH 2. ) Low Chuan Jyi 3. ) Soo Mee Ling

Citation

BA-25-60-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-25-60-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held the Tribunal had jurisdiction because the centralised air‑conditioning and related built‑up area implications were within the four corners of the SPA as shown by the approved plans, the Deed of Mutual Covenant and the vendor’s admissions; the respondents’ claim fell within the defects liability period in clause 29 and thus satisfied s16N(2) time limits; the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction by considering technical and human‑safety factors; accordingly the Tribunal’s award was upheld and the judicial review application dismissed.
21 Jul 2022

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Perbadanan Nasional Berhad PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN Jeffery Bin Munap

Citation

WA-29NCC-191-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-191-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that it has no discretion to extend or abridge the six‑month statutory time limit in s5(1)(c) IA; because the act of bankruptcy occurred on 24.9.2021 the last date to present the petition was 23.3.2022 and any petition filed after that date is not permitted; accordingly the application to extend time is dismissed.
30 Jun 2022

PENTADBIR TANAH DAERAH, DAERAH SEBERANG PERAI TENGAH, PULAU PINANG 1. ) Jugajorthy A/p Visvanathan 2. ) Jugajorthy A/p Visvanathan(Sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Bagi Mendiang Suaminya Sivasegaran A/L Kandiah, Si mati)

Citation

P-01(NCvC)(W)-318-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

P-01(NCvC)(W)-318-06/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the plaintiffs' claims against the Pentadbir Tanah and KPTG were time-barred under s.2(a) PAPA 1948 because the causes of action accrued well over 36 months before filing; limitation under s.2(a) is mandatory and may be relied upon even if not pleaded. The court found no established fraud or mala fide that would invalidate the acquisition; non-service of Form E on the registered proprietors did not vitiate the proceedings where Form D was gazetted and Form E was served on the registered chargee (MARA) and where the proviso to s.11(1) and s.56 operate to cure omissions…
27 Dec 2021

So Chien Hao [C.H. SO & ASSOC. (KUALA LUMPUR)] Jenny Saw Lye Hong, Lucas Chong Wan Jien [CHOY & ASSOCIATES (PENANG)] PENCELAH Esther Geethar Jayaraja, Lee Heng Siang [CHEW DASS, JAYARAJA]

Citation

PA-24NCVC-1138-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCVC-1138-12/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to intervene was dismissed because the proposed intervener's personal right to seek taxation of the invoices was extinguished by operation of section 128(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (more than one year had elapsed), and the court has no power to extend that statutory limit; permitting intervention would therefore be wrong and an abuse of process.
27 Nov 2020

AWAN TIMUR PALM OIL MILL RESOURCES (PERAK) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 576904-H) TETUAN SHAHRIZAL & NASIR

Citation

JA-17D-3-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-17D-3-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the defendant established a bona fide bill of costs and the plaintiff failed to apply for taxation within the one-year statutory period under s128(2) of the Legal Profession Act, which extinguished the plaintiff's remedy; no special circumstances existed to allow taxation outside the one-year bar and the fees were reasonable under the Solicitors Remuneration Order.
6 Oct 2020

PANG SHYIAN JUANG [sebagai pentadbir dan waris kepada Pang Seng Hee] 1. PENTADBIR TANAH SEGAMAT UNIT PEMBAHAGIAN PUSAKA 2. PHANG SIN KIEN [sebagai pentadbir dan wakil kepada waris lain]

Citation

JA-24NCvC-343-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-343-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that the 14‑day appeal period prescribed by the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955 and the Small Estates (Distribution) Regulations 1955 (regulation 10(1)(c)) is a statutory time limit that the High Court cannot extend under Order 3 rule 5; alternatively, even if extension were available, the Applicant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for an eight‑month delay. Therefore the application for extension and stay was dismissed.