RAHMAH BINTI ARSHAD v 1. ) ABDUL MALIK BIN YUSOFF 2. ) MOHD SAZALI BIN SAAT
Outcome
Penutup [25] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan di atas, rayuan Perayu (P2) di sini adalah ditolak tanpa perintah untuk kos.
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Case Significance
Illustrates the strict computation of the three-year limitation period for a dependency claim under section 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956, holding that a writ filed on the third anniversary of the death is one day out of time and the claim is liable to be struck out.
This High Court decision concerns the limitation period for a dependency claim under the Civil Law Act 1956 and the striking out of a claim filed a day too late. The appellant, the mother of a young woman who died as a passenger in a road accident involving three vehicles, had joined with another plaintiff in suing two drivers; her own claim was a dependency claim brought on behalf of her deceased daughter under section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956. Section 7(5) requires such a claim to be brought within three years after the death. The accident, and the death, occurred on a date in late December 2020, and the writ was filed exactly three years later, on the anniversary of the death. The respondents applied to strike out the appellant's dependency claim under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2012, on the single ground that it was time-barred under section 7(5), and the Sessions Court allowed the application. On appeal, the court considered when the three-year period expired. Bound by the Federal Court's decision in Great Eastern on the computation of such periods, it held that the last day for the appellant to file her action fell on the day before the third anniversary of the death, so that the writ filed on the anniversary itself was one day out of time and the claim was time-barred. It affirmed the Sessions Court's striking out of the claim under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d), noting that a reference by the Sessions Court to the Limitation Act 1953 was mere surplusage because it had correctly relied on section 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956. Expressing sympathy, the court nonetheless dismissed the appeal without an order as to costs. The judgment is a useful illustration of the strict computation of the three-year limitation period for dependency claims and the consequences of filing even a day late.
Why was the dependency claim struck out?
The court held that a dependency claim under section 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 must be brought within three years of the death under section 7(5), and that, computing the period in accordance with the Federal Court's decision in Great Eastern, the last day fell on the day before the third anniversary of the death. The writ filed on the anniversary itself was one day out of time and time-barred.
Did the Sessions Court's reference to the Limitation Act 1953 affect the result?
No. The court held that the reference to the Limitation Act 1953 was mere surplusage because the Sessions Court had correctly relied on section 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956, and it affirmed the striking out under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (5)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ja-12a-7-10-2024)