Back
2025 MarsdenLR 826
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ACCENT TECHNIQUE SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KUALA LUMPUR AVIATION FUELLING SYSTEM SDN BHD (ENCL 1) – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24C(ARB)-50-07/2024]
The court holds equitable jurisdiction under the Limitation Act 1953 to exclude time periods for statutory limitations, but res judicata bars re-litigation of previously adjudicated issues.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act 1953 - Section 30(5) - Court's equitable jurisdiction to exclude time in statutory limitation - The Plaintiff sought extension of time to commence arbitration against the Defendant, claiming that delays were due to jurisdictional challenges by the Defendant. Court held it has jurisdiction to extend limitation periods. (Paras 5, 7, 21)
(B) Res Judicata - The principle of issue estoppel applies, preventing the Plaintiff from re-litigating the same issues as previously adjudicated. The court emphasized the importance of finality in litigation. (Paras 28, 29, 31)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff applied for extensions regarding arbitration claims related to the VO2 Claim, asserting that jurisdictional challenges by the Defendant hindered their ability to proceed. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff did not pursue their claims timely and dismissed the application based on the principles of res judicata and jurisdictional challenges raised by the Defendant. (Paras 32)
Issues: The main issues included whether the court has jurisdiction to extend limitation periods and whether the Plaintiff can relitigate previously decided issues. (Paras 8, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it possesses equitable jurisdiction under the Limitation Act to exclude time periods under specific circumstances, but found that the Plaintiff failed to act within reasonable time and was barred from relitigating the same issues. (Paras 5, 21, 31)
Result: Application dismissed with costs.
[1] The brief chronology of the background facts are as follows:
Application Under The Originating Summons Herein
[2] The Plaintiff here has applied to this Court for an order that:
i. a declaration that the Plaintiff be granted an extension of time to commence an arbitration against the Defendant;
ii. a declaration that the period between the commencement of the arbitration on 8 September 2022 up to and until the High Court Decision on 8 February 2024 be excluded in computing the time prescribed by the Limitation Act 1953 ;
iii. alternatively, a declaration that the Defendant is precluded from pleading the defence of limitation.
[3] To surmise the extension of time ("EOT") sought is for an order to allow the Plaintiff to commence an arbitration against the Defendant grounded on the contract i.e the Letter of Award and the Agreement which the Plaintiff claims first arose n 26 April 2016 when the Defendant valued the VO2 Claim but refused to pay for it and which the Plaintiff further contends accrued afresh on 3 February 2017 when the Defendant acknowledged there were outstanding sums due to the VO2 Claim but maintained its refusal to pay.
[4] In the proceedings herein, the Defendant has however raised a preliminary point that the Court has no jurisdiction to extend any statutory limitation periods.
Analysis & Findings
Preliminary Point
[5] With regards the preliminary point that the Court has no jurisdiction to extend any statutory limitation periods, I hold that the Court has an equitable jurisdiction to extend any statutory limitation periods based on s 30(5) of the Limitation Act 1953 which provides:
"(5) Where the High Court orders that an award be set aside or orders, after the commencement of an arbitration, that the arbitration shall cease to have effect with respect to the dispute referred, the Court may further order that the period between the commencement of the arbitration and the date of the order of the Court shall be excluded in computing the time prescribed by this act or any such written law as aforesaid for the commencement of proceedings (including arbitration) with respect to the dispute referred."
[6] From the chronology of events before me, the VO 2 Claim in Arbitration 1 had been commenced on 24 January 2017 but due to inter alia the Defendant's jurisdictional challenge, the same was terminated approximately 70 months later on 14 November 2022. Arbitration 2 was commenced on 9 August 2022 but again due to the Defendant's jurisdictional challenge was declared null and void some 18 months later on 8 February 2024 by the High Court.
[7] Consequently, I am of the view that from the wordings as per s 30(5) of the Limitation Act 1953 in particular the words "...the Court may further order that the period between the commencement of the arbitration and the date of the order of the Court shall be excluded in computing the time prescribed by this act or any such written law', with such provision giving the Court in such circumstances the discretionary power to order that the computation of time to be excluded.
Main Issues
[8] Before me, the Plaintiff contends that it has actively pursued its rights with regards the VO 2 Claim but it was thwarted by the jurisdictional and technical challenges of the Defendant in both Arbitration 1 and Arbitration 2 and that if a fresh arbitration or lawsuit were to be commenced now, it would be caught by limitation.
[9] Depending on when the cause of action accrued for either Arbitration 1 i.e 26 April 2016 as alleged by the Plaintiff where the Defendant was alleged to have valued VO 2 Claim and/or Arbitration 2 i.e a fresh cause of action accruing allegedly when the Defendant acknowledged the outstanding claim die on the VO2 Claim on 3 February 2017, the same would now be caught by limitation.
[10] I have observed from the chronology of events, that the Tribunal in Arbitration 1 had on 12 May 2022 dismissed the application by the Plaintiff and one Maxwell Accent JV Sdn Bhd ("Maxwell") to subst
