Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

TIME’S UP: NAVIGATING THE 12-YEAR LIMITATION

In the intricate dance of land security and loan agreements, the ticking clock of the limitation period cannot be ignored. This excerpt delves into the critical understanding of how the 12-year limitation period, as prescribed by the Limitation Act 1953, plays a pivotal role in the enforcement of property charges in Malaysia. It elucidates the start time of this countdown and its legal implications, providing a comprehensive guide for both lenders and borrowers in navigating these time-sensitive waters.

Illustrative Scenario:

In 2001, ‘X’ (the chargor) used his land as collateral for a loan from Bank Y (the chargee). By 2008, X defaulted on the loan repayment, but it wasn’t until 2022 that Bank Y sought an order for sale. In this scenario, X can effectively argue that Bank Y’s claim is nullified by the 12-year statutory limitation period, implying that Bank Y has lost both its interest in the land and its right to enforce the charge through legal means.

Understanding the Limitation Period for Legal Actions in Malaysia:

The Limitation Act 1953 establishes clear timelines for initiating legal actions in Malaysia, preventing indefinite delays in exercising legal rights. This legislation specifies varying limitation periods for different kinds of legal claims, ensuring timely justice and the protection of rights.

Key Legal Issues and Their Implications:

Issue 1: Applicability of the 12-Year Limitation Period for Enforcing a Charge:

  • Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 clearly applies a 12-year limitation period to actions involving the enforcement of a charge.
  • This period commences from the date of the chargor’s default on repayment, not from the date of failure to address the default as specified in the National Land Code’s Form 16D issued by the chargee.

Issue 2: Chargee’s Rights Post the 12-Year Limitation Period:

Should the chargee fail to secure an order for sale within the 12-year limitation period, they lose the legal standing to enforce their registrable right or interest under the charge.

  • In such cases, the court holds the authority to adjudicate matters of title or interest by the operation of law, as per Section 340(4)(b) of the National Land Code. This means the court can make a binding decision on the ownership or interest in the property, effectively recognizing the extinguishment of the chargee’s rights after the lapse of the limitation period.

Case in point:

  • Thameez Nisha Hasseem (as the administrator of the estate of Bee Fathima @ dll, deceased) v Maybank Allied Bank Bhd [2023] 4 MLJ 145
  • CIMB Bank Bhd v Sivadevi a/p Sivalingam [2020] 1 MLJ 583
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami