A cause of action for payment in a sale of goods contract arises at the end of the credit term stipulated in the invoice, not upon the invoice date.

JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariettes Peters JC:

Introduction

[1] This was the Defendant's application ("this Application") in enclosure 45, pursuant to O 14A and O 33 of the Rules of 2012 ("Rules of ") to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim after the determination of the following question of law:

Whether the limitation period was calculated from 1 October 2013, which is the date of invoices, or from 30 December 2013, which was at the expiry of the 90-day credit term stipulated in the invoices.

The Background Facts

[2] The Plaintiff had filed a claim ("this Claim") for an amount of MYR1,065,271 against the Defendant, for goods sold and delivered. The last invoice between the parties was dated 1 October 2013. However, on the invoice, the credit term of 90 days was given to the Defendant to settle the balance purchase price.

[3] Since this Claim was filed on 25 November 2019, the Defendant averred that it was statute-barred as limitation had already set in on 1 October 2019, that is, six years from the date of the invoice of 1 October 2013. Hence, the Defendant filed this Application, which was dismissed for the following reasons.

The Applicable Law

[4] This Application was made under O 14A and O 33 of the Rules of , both of which read:

Order 14A - Disposal Of Case On Point Of Law

Rule 1 Determination Of Questions Of Law Or Construction (O 14A r 1)

(1) The Court may, upon the application of a party or of its own motion, determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings where it appears to the Court that-

(a) such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action; and

(b) such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein.

(2) On such determination the Court may dismiss the cause or matter or make such order or judgment as it thinks just.

...

*********

Order 33 - Mode Of Trial

Rule 5 Dismissal Of Action After Decision Of Preliminary Issue

If it appears to the Court that the decision of any question or issue arising in a cause or matter and tried separately from the cause or matter substantially disposes of the cause or matter or renders the trial of the cause or matter unnecessary, it may dismiss the cause or matter or make such other order or give such judgment therein as may be just.

[5] The principles governing an application under O 14A and O 33 of the Rules of have been distilled by the Federal Court in the case ofThein Hong Teck & Ors v. Mohd Afrizan Husain & Another Appeal, 1992 MarsdenLR 11183 , citing with approval the case of Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd; [2008] 2 MLJ 812; [2007] 6 CLJ 741 which had reiterated that O 14A of the Rules of may be utilised to dispose a case, only if the following requirements were met:

a) There is no dispute between the parties as to the relevant facts;

b) The Court, from its scrutiny of the pleadings, concludes that the material facts are not in dispute; and

c) The issues of fact are not interwoven with the issues of law.

[6] The Federal Court in the case of Director of Forests, Sarawak & Anor v. Racha Ak Urud @ Peter Racha Urud & Ors And Other Appeals, 2017 MarsdenLR 1685 , through Balia Yusof FCJ, laid down the test in determining whether the question of law or construction was suitable to be determined and disposed of under O 14A and O 33 of the Rules of , in the following passage:

[35] On the applicability and the approach to be taken by the Court in exercising its powers and discretion under O 14A, we refer to the commentary on O 14A appearing in the Malaysian Court Practice (Practitioner Edition), a publication of the Malayan Law Journal at pp 125-127 which reads as follows:

[14A.1.3.] Suitable question of law or construction. The question of law or construction must be suitable to be determined without the full trial of the action. The test of whether the question of law or construction is 'suitable' to be determined under this order is whether all the necessar