2 Pre-litigation issues

Lim Kean v Choo Koon

cause of action:

• a person who can sue & another who can be sued

• plaintiff to prove all facts to succeed

Taib bin Awang

HC struck out bc P did not disclose a reasonable cause of action (O18 r19)

Simetech (1992)

P was not allowed to amend the writ & SOC to add in a subsequent cause of action (subsequent owing) if it didnt exist when the writ was issued.

• amendments relate back to the writ issued.

Sao Koon Lin v Mehra

FC held that P did not have any cause of action in respect to the subsequent amount due, as no instalments were then due (issuance of writ).

• unless: default clause

Simcity-ETE Venture (2022)

failure to plead a cause of action is fatal to the action

s.6 LA

6 years

Pirelli v Oscar Faber

property damage: when damage occurred

Cartledge v E Jopling

personal injury: when it occurred

Credit Corporation v Fong Tak Sin

personal injury: when it occurred

• knowledge of the identity of D is irrelevant (John Doe suit)

Julian Chong v Lee Kim Noor

PEL: when actual loss/damage occurred

s.6A LA

prerequisites:

1. after expiration of 6 years

2. claim for damages not involving personal injury

+3 years from starting date: the date P has both-

1. knowledge

2. right to sue

subject to 15 years long stop

Julian Chong 2

s.6A is not limited to construction cases only

Tetuan Kamarudin v Chew Swee Yoke

contract: time begins from the day of breach

s.9(1) LA

recovery of land: 12 years

Nasri v Mesah

s.9 applies to recovery of land through SP

Ponnusamy v Nathu Ram

s.9 applies to all actions to recover land irrespective of whether they’re founded on contract or otherwise

Toh Puan D Heryati

distinguished itself from Nasri, concerns undertakings

s.22 LA

trust property: 6 years

except: 1. fraudulent breach; 2. to recover trust property from trustee

Sok Chun Tong v Vincent

s.22 6 years limitation applies to

1. not a fraudulent breach

2. to recover pty from someone NOT t1t2

s.24 LA

EOT: disability - 6 years from ceased to be disabled

Ling Towi Sing

the court has no inherent power to suspend limitation under s.24 when the disability occurred after the cause of action

s.26 LA

time starts running from date of acknowledgment/part payment (Yam Kong Seng)

s.27 LA

acknowledgment: in writing & signed

s.29 LA

postponement of limitation: fraud/mistake

• discovery element

Wee Hood Teck Development

fraud in s.29: "unconscionable thing”

Fong Tak Sin

mistake in s.29: the mistake cause of action

Tenaga Nasional v Karmastone

s.29 doesnt apply bc it was not a mistake (cause of action occurred when there’s a failure to pay). but s.26 applies bc of acknowledgement from D

s.2 PAPA

36 months: public duty/neglect in the execution

Lee Hock Ning v Govt of Malaysia

s.22 PAPA doesnt apply. P complained about non-payment, not the public duty.

Selvaraju Ponniah

time under s.2 PAPA starts to run from the act complained of (dismissal of appeal), not the communication (letter sent conveying such message)

Phua Chin Chew

s.2 PAPA limitation period postponed by applying s.33 of LA that makes s.24 LA applicable to cases involving PAPA.

• bad but fair decision