Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

LIMITATION OF ACTION – TIME WAITS FOR NO CLAIM – COURT OF APPEAL STRIKES OUT PKA’S LATE ACTION

1. Summary and Facts

In Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd v Port Kelang Authority [2025] 2 MLJ 238, the appeal arose from an application by Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd (“KDSB”) to strike out a claim filed by Port Kelang Authority (“PKA”) on grounds of limitation. PKA had brought a suit against KDSB for alleged breaches relating to agreements involving the development and sale of land. KDSB contended that PKA’s claim was time-barred, having been filed beyond the prescribed statutory limitation period. PKA argued that its claim was filed within the applicable limitation period, asserting that it had discovered the breaches only at a later date, thus invoking principles relating to the postponement of limitation periods. The High Court initially dismissed KDSB’s application to strike out PKA’s claim, prompting KDSB to appeal.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether PKA’s claims against KDSB were statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1953.
• Whether the postponement of limitation under section 29 of the Limitation Act 1953 applied, considering PKA’s contention of late discovery of the breaches.
• Whether the High Court erred in dismissing KDSB’s striking-out application on limitation grounds.

3. Court’s Findings

• The Court of Appeal allowed KDSB’s appeal, reversing the High Court’s decision and ordering the striking out of PKA’s claim.
• The claims brought by PKA were statute-barred, having exceeded the six-year limitation period under section 6 of the Limitation Act 1953.
• The court held that section 29 (postponement of limitation) of the Limitation Act did not apply, as PKA failed to establish that it could not have discovered the alleged breaches earlier with reasonable diligence.
• The Court found that PKA had knowledge or ought reasonably to have had knowledge of the breaches earlier, and thus could not rely on the postponement of limitation. Consequently, the action was time-barred.

4. Practical Implications

This judgment provides clarity on limitation periods in civil claims and highlights the following implications:
• Parties must be vigilant in monitoring contractual obligations and assert claims promptly upon breach to avoid limitation issues.
• Claimants seeking to invoke section 29 (postponement of limitation) must demonstrate conclusively that they could not have reasonably discovered the breaches earlier.
• The decision reinforces the courts’ strict interpretation of limitation statutes, highlighting the necessity for claimants to act swiftly and diligently upon discovery or suspicion of contractual breaches.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT – INSURANCE – DECLARATION TO NOT INDEMNIFY THE INSURANCE

In Mohd Riza bin Mat Rani & Ors v Zurich General Takaful Malaysia Bhd [2025] 2 MLJ 224, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the claimants and set aside the High Court’s decision which had favoured the insurer. The Court held that Zurich was not entitled to repudiate liability under the motor takaful policy, as the alleged non-disclosures were not proven to be material or made dishonestly. Emphasising the principles of fairness and protection inherent in takaful, the Court ruled that technical omissions should not be used to defeat the rights of accident victims and their families.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – A PEACEFUL WIN: COURT STRIKES DOWN CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR NO NOTICE UNDER PAA

In Amir Hariri bin Abd Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2025] 4 MLJ 807, the Court of Appeal struck down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 as unconstitutional. The provision, which criminalised organisers for failing to give 10 days’ prior notice of an assembly, was held to be a disproportionate restriction on the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b). The Court emphasised that while notice requirements under Section 9(1) remain valid for regulatory purposes, criminal penalties for non-compliance imposed an unjustifiable burden on fundamental liberties. This landmark ruling strengthens constitutional protections for public assemblies in Malaysia.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

MARITIME LAW – LIEN, LOSS AND LMAA: ENGLISH COMMERCIAL COURT ORDERS SALE OF DETERIORATING CARGO

In Lord Marine Co Ltd v Vimeksim Trans SA & Anor [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 52, the English Commercial Court exercised its powers under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 to order the sale of a deteriorating cargo of Ukrainian corn over which the shipowners had exercised a lien for unpaid freight. Mr Justice Bryan held that the cargo was the “subject of the proceedings” and that the court could intervene to preserve its value pending LMAA arbitration. The decision clarifies that a “freight prepaid” stamp does not estop owners where freight has not actually been paid and the bills of lading never left owners’ possession, and that possession can be maintained even when the cargo is stored in a receivers’ warehouse. This case reinforces the court’s readiness to act swiftly to prevent the loss of value in perishable cargo while safeguarding parties through fortified undertakings in damages.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

SUMMARY JUDGMENT – NO ESCAPE FOR GUARANTORS – COURT GRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO OCBC IN LOAN DEFAULT DISPUTE

In OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Agroglobal Sdn Bhd [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558, the Singapore High Court granted summary judgment against the borrower and its guarantors, dismissing bare allegations of misrepresentation and non-disbursement. The decision reaffirmed that signed facility and guarantee documents are binding, and generic denials- absent credible evidence – will not prevent judgment. The case highlights the judiciary’s strict stance on enforcing loan agreements and signals that guarantors cannot plead ignorance of clear contractual obligations.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

MARITIME LAW – PORT CHARGES – BERTH AND BILL – COURT ANCHORS LIABILITY FOR PORT DUES ON IDLE VESSEL

In Marina Developments Ltd v Owner(S) Of “Sy Explorer” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 428, the court upheld the Port Authority’s statutory right to recover outstanding berthing charges, despite claims of abandonment by the vessel’s owners. The judgment reinforces that unless formal legal abandonment procedures are undertaken, port dues will continue to accrue. This decision affirms that even stationary vessels carry financial obligations, and port authorities can enforce recovery under maritime law protocols.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

MARITIME LAW – BILLS OF LADING – NO BILL, NO CARGO – SHIPOWNERS HELD LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY WITHOUT ORIGINAL BL

In the pivotal case of The Doric Valour [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 401, the Court of Appeal affirmed the stringent maritime principle that cargo cannot lawfully be released without the surrender of original bills of lading. Rejecting shipowners’ reliance on indemnities to justify cargo delivery without original documents, the Court emphasized the sanctity of the bill of lading as the cornerstone of secure international trade. This decision serves as a robust reminder for maritime operators that compliance with established shipping documentation procedures is mandatory to avoid serious liabilities.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们