Credit Corporation (M) Bhd v. Fong Tak Sin SC

Subject Matter: Limitation Act, Knowledge of Defendant's Identity, Adding Parties, Mistake

A road traffic accident occurred on June 18, 1979, involving a taxi driven by Fong Tak Sin (respondent) and a bus.
Fong Tak Sin sustained injuries and claimed special and general damages.
Writ action was filed on June 16, 1984.
The appellant, Credit Corporation (M) Bhd, was the owner of the bus, which was let out on hire-purchase.
Solicitors for the appellant informed the respondent's solicitors of their representation via a letter dated August 15, 1984.
Respondent's first solicitor passed away in November 1988.

On February 20, 1989, the respondent's new solicitors filed a summons-in-chambers seeking:
- Leave to amend the writ of summons and statement of claim.
- Liberty to add the appellant as a third defendant.
- 30 days to file third-party proceedings.
The initial holding was that the respondent became aware of the appellant's ownership on August 15, 1984, and the limitation period ran from that date, not from the accident date.

The Supreme Court addressed the trial judge's errors in determining when a cause of action accrues.

Limitation Act 1953 Section 6(1)(a): The six-year limitation period runs from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
Hashim Yeop A. Sani CJ's view:
- A cause of action accrues when there is a person who can sue, another who can be sued, and all material facts to prove the case have occurred.
- Knowledge of the defendant's identity is irrelevant under the Malaysian statute of limitation.
- On the accident date, there existed someone who could sue (respondent) and someone who could be sued (including the appellant), along with the facts needed for the respondent to succeed in the action.
The trial judge's ruling that knowledge affects limitation was incorrect.

The trial judge determined there was a mistake regarding investigations with RIMV (Registrar and Inspector for Motor Vehicles, now JPJ/RTD) about the bus's registered owner.
Limitation Act Section 29: In cases of fraud or mistake, the limitation period is postponed until the plaintiff discovers the fraud or mistake with reasonable diligence.
The Supreme Court ruled that section 29 did not apply because the mistake was not an essential ingredient of the cause of action.
Examples where section 29(c) would apply: money paid due to a mistake, contracts entered into due to a mistake, accounts settled due to mistakes.

Hashim Yeop A. Sani CJ stated that adding or substituting a new party after the limitation period expires should not be allowed.
Reference to Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners [1983] 2 AC 1:
- The House of Lords examined the rule against amending to join a defendant after the limitation period.
- The "no useful purpose theory" suggests no benefit in joining a defendant after the limitation has run in their favor because they are not deemed a party before the actual joinder date and would have a complete defense.

Presumption: A right not exercised for a long time is considered non-existent.
Purpose: To avoid uncertainty and doubt, discourage plaintiffs from delaying action, and provide a definite end to litigation.
Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: It is in the public's interest that there be an end to litigation.
The Chief Justice enforced the rationale of limitation law, allowing the appeal.

The limitation period begins when the cause of action accrues, not necessarily when the plaintiff gains full knowledge of all parties involved.
Mistakes must be essential to the cause of action to postpone the limitation period.
Adding parties after the limitation period is generally not allowed to protect the potential defendant's right to a limitation defense.
Limitation laws exist to ensure timely resolution of disputes and prevent indefinite legal exposure.