Limitation

108 cases · May 2021 to July 2026

Overview

Limitation appears in 108 reported Malaysia judgments (2021–2026).

In this practice area

Limitation collects the judgments in which the timeliness of a claim is decisive — whether an action was brought within the period the Limitation Act 1953 and the specialised limitation provisions prescribe, and when the cause of action is treated as having arisen. Because a limitation defence can defeat an otherwise good claim, the area cuts across contract, land, company and professional-negligence litigation.

The accrual of the cause of action is a central question. Judgments examine when time begins to run, including the effect of a later appellate decision on the date a claim is treated as having arisen, and the doctrine of prospective overruling where a regulation is declared ultra vires. Statutory time bars specific to particular subjects recur: the three-month period under section 418 of the National Land Code for an appeal against a decision on land, the application of the twelve-year period to charge actions, and whether the Limitation Act 1953 applies to a proof of debt in a winding up.

Enforcement and its own time limits form a further strand. Judgments consider whether leave of the court is required before a judgment creditor commences garnishee proceedings to enforce a judgment obtained more than six years earlier, and the interaction of limitation with unjust enrichment where money has been paid and accepted as full and final settlement. Professional-negligence claims against solicitors, and the point at which such a claim accrues, also appear.

The cases sit mainly in the High Court, with appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court on the operation of the limitation rules. As a whole the area shows how the Malaysian courts hold litigants to the statutory timetable — barring stale claims to protect defendants and preserve certainty — while identifying the precise point at which the clock begins to run in each type of action.

Case Volume by Year

2021–2026

Key Issues & Sub-Topics

Limitation Act 1953 — Section 6(1)(a) — Action founded on fraud and misrepresentation — Transactions occurring in 2013 — Plaintiff admitting discovery of alleged fraud and lodging police report on 1 July 2017 — Writ filed on 1 October 2024 — Whether claim statute-barred — Held, yes. 1 Limitation Act 1953 — Section 29 — Fraud exception — Whether Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient material facts to postpone commencement of limitation period — Whether subsequent discovery of additional evidence revived limitation period — Held, no — Plaintiffs having admitted discovery of alleged fraud by July 2017. 1 Tort — Section 6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953 — Six-year limitation period — Cause of action arising from road accident — Defendant added after expiry of limitation period — Whether action against defendant statute-barred 1 Limitation Act 1953 — Section 6 and section 29 — Fraud and postponement of limitation — Date of accrual — Date of discovery — Reasonable diligence — Whether limitation can be determined as preliminary issue — Whether limitation fact-sensitive — Whether issue intertwined with allegations of fraud and concealment 1 Cause of action for LAD — Limitation Act 1953, s 6(1)(a) — Cause of action accrues upon delivery of vacant possession — Distinction between challenge to validity of SPA clauses (Obata-Ambak) and computation of LAD (PJD Regency). 1 Cause of action — Accrual date — Contract — Promise to pay incentive — Plaintiff informed of Board's approval in 2010 — Whether breach occurred when payment not made after obligation arose — Whether discovery of subsequent Board minutes refusing payment extended limitation period — Limitation Act 1953, s 6(1)(a) 1 Limitation of actions — Tenancy agreement executed in 2018 — Suit commenced in 2025 — Whether claim statute-barred — Postponement of limitation — Alleged fraud or concealment — Means of discovery with ordinary diligence — Public land records — Limitation Act 1953, ss 6, 29 1 Laches — Equitable defence — Whether applicable where statutory limitation period not expired — Suit filed within six-year limitation period — Delay of seven months not unreasonable — Defence rejected — Limitation Act 1953, s.6(1)(a). 1 Tort — s.6(1)(a) Limitation Act — One-day late filing — s.29 concealment — Whether referral letter withheld — Discovery during custody proceedings — Fact-sensitive issue. Medical Negligence — Psychiatric referral letter — Issued without examination — Breach of duty — Need for viva voce evidence. Confidentiality — Medical records — Disclosure without consent — MMC confidentiality rules — Letter given to husband — Whether wrongful disclosure. Vicarious Liability — Clinic operator — Relationship between D1 and D2 — Control and integration — Triable issue. Abuse of Process — Late service — No mala fides — Serious allegations — Not frivolous or vexatious. 1 when the cause of action arose — whether the cause of action arose after the decision of Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 281 or within 6 years after the execution of the SPAs. 1

Limitation Act 1953 — Section 6(1)(a) — Action founded on fraud and misrepresentation — Transactions occurring in 2013 — Plaintiff admitting discovery of alleged fraud and lodging police report on 1 July 2017 — Writ filed on 1 October 2024 — Whether claim statute-barred — Held, yes. 1 case

ja-22ncvc-132-10-2024 1. ) K. PARAMESVARAN A/L N KANNAN 2. ) KANAGAMBAL A/P VEERAPAN @ PARAMESU v 1. ) KUTTY KRISHNAN A/L BALAN 2. ) THINARACHAGI A/P KUTTY KRISHNAN

11 June 2026

Limitation Act 1953 — Section 29 — Fraud exception — Whether Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient material facts to postpone commencement of limitation period — Whether subsequent discovery of additional evidence revived limitation period — Held, no — Plaintiffs having admitted discovery of alleged fraud by July 2017. 1 case

ja-22ncvc-132-10-2024 1. ) K. PARAMESVARAN A/L N KANNAN 2. ) KANAGAMBAL A/P VEERAPAN @ PARAMESU v 1. ) KUTTY KRISHNAN A/L BALAN 2. ) THINARACHAGI A/P KUTTY KRISHNAN

11 June 2026

Tort — Section 6(1)(a) Limitation Act 1953 — Six-year limitation period — Cause of action arising from road accident — Defendant added after expiry of limitation period — Whether action against defendant statute-barred 1 case

ja-11a-2-10-2025 SITI MARIATI BINTI CHE NOH v TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD

3 May 2026

Limitation Act 1953 — Section 6 and section 29 — Fraud and postponement of limitation — Date of accrual — Date of discovery — Reasonable diligence — Whether limitation can be determined as preliminary issue — Whether limitation fact-sensitive — Whether issue intertwined with allegations of fraud and concealment 1 case

ma-22ncvc-63-12-2023 ANG SOON YAM v 1. ) TI HOCK SENG 2. ) LIM HOO SENG 3. ) JUSTIN TI KAI SIONG 4. ) JEFFREY TI KAI JIM

13 April 2026

Cause of action for LAD — Limitation Act 1953, s 6(1)(a) — Cause of action accrues upon delivery of vacant possession — Distinction between challenge to validity of SPA clauses (Obata-Ambak) and computation of LAD (PJD Regency). 1 case

wa-12ancvc-132-10-2025 LAKEFRONT RESIDENCE SDN BHD v 1. ) ANG SOK CHOO 2. ) LEE HAI PING 3. ) LEE THIN YOW 4. ) SAK YOKE MENG 5. ) TAM KWEE THAI 6. ) TEH HUI BOON 7. ) YAP HAN CHONG 8. ) SHIRLEY TEO

24 March 2026

Cause of action — Accrual date — Contract — Promise to pay incentive — Plaintiff informed of Board's approval in 2010 — Whether breach occurred when payment not made after obligation arose — Whether discovery of subsequent Board minutes refusing payment extended limitation period — Limitation Act 1953, s 6(1)(a) 1 case

ta-12bncvc-3-06-2025 MANAF BIN BEDO v LADANG RAKYAT TRENGGANU SDN BHD

27 January 2026

Limitation of actions — Tenancy agreement executed in 2018 — Suit commenced in 2025 — Whether claim statute-barred — Postponement of limitation — Alleged fraud or concealment — Means of discovery with ordinary diligence — Public land records — Limitation Act 1953, ss 6, 29 1 case

wa-22ncvc-167-03-2025 BAEV Holdings Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Yong Chun Khiong 2. ) MBL Agarwood ECO Leisureland Sdn Bhd

21 December 2025

Laches — Equitable defence — Whether applicable where statutory limitation period not expired — Suit filed within six-year limitation period — Delay of seven months not unreasonable — Defence rejected — Limitation Act 1953, s.6(1)(a). 1 case

wa-22ncc-785-10-2023 EXELLE MEDICAL SDN. BHD. v 1. ) MK MEDILANCE SDN. BHD. 2. ) INTERMEDECO SDN. BHD. 3. ) CHIN KEH JOO

9 November 2025

when the cause of action arose — whether the cause of action arose after the decision of Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor And Other Appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 281 or within 6 years after the execution of the SPAs. 1 case

02i-70-08-2022w OBATA-AMBAK HOLDINGS SDN BHD v PREMA BONANZA SDN BHD PEGUAM PEMERHATI 1. ) Country Garden Danga Bay Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Amona Metro Development Sdn Bhd 3. ) Choy May May dan 15 lagi 4. ) Persatuan Pemaju Hartanah Dan Perumahan Malaysia ataupun dikenali sebagai “REHDA” 5. ) Kes Mahkamah Rayuan UPE Bangsar South Development (JV) SB 6. ) Kes Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Lim Biiang Haur vs Platium Sdn Bhd 7. ) Kes Guaman Sivil yang melibatkan tuntutan Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) 8. ) Kes Mahk...

25 July 2024

Key Statutes

Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)

cited in 58 cases

Rules of Court 2012

cited in 37 cases

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

cited in 15 cases

Companies Act 2016

cited in 8 cases

Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)

cited in 6 cases

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)

cited in 5 cases

National Land Code (Cap 828)

cited in 5 cases

Limitation Act

cited in 5 cases

Insolvency Act 1967 (Cap 360)

cited in 4 cases

Civil Law Act 1956 (Cap 67)

cited in 3 cases

Arbitration Act 2005 (Cap 646)

cited in 3 cases

Limitation Ordinance

cited in 2 cases

Strata Titles Act 1985 (Cap 318)

cited in 2 cases

Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Cap 486)

cited in 2 cases

Civil Law Ordinance

cited in 2 cases

Court Distribution

MYHC 92 MYCOA 9 MYFC 7

Key People & Firms

How many Limitation cases are reported in Malaysia courts?

108 reported Malaysia judgments (2021–2026) involve Limitation.

Why does Limitation matter across so many areas?

A limitation defence can defeat an otherwise valid claim, so the reasoning attaches to contract, land, company and professional-negligence disputes alike. The Limitation Act 1953 supplies the general periods, and specialised statutes prescribe their own time bars.

When does the cause of action accrue?

The judgments examine when time begins to run — including the effect of a later appellate decision and the doctrine of prospective overruling — and apply subject-specific bars such as the three-month period under section 418 of the National Land Code and the twelve-year period for charge actions.

Does limitation affect enforcement of a judgment?

Yes. The collection considers whether leave is required before a judgment creditor commences garnishee proceedings to enforce a judgment more than six years old, and how limitation interacts with claims in unjust enrichment and with a proof of debt in a winding up.