Back
2023 MarsdenLR 755
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
BAYANGAN SEPADU SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
CHAN YIN LING – Respondent
[Civil Case No: WA-22NCvC-684-12/2023]
A claim that is time-barred under the Limitation Act is considered frivolous and an abuse of process, leading to its dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act 1953 - Section 6 - Application to strike out claim - Plaintiff failed to disclose reasonable cause of action against Second and Third Defendants, and claim was time-barred - Court found no involvement of Defendants in alleged fraud - Claim struck out for being frivolous and vexatious. (Paras 1, 10, 11, 13, 20, 22)
(B) Abuse of process - A claim that is time-barred is deemed an abuse of process of the Court. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff claimed deceit and fraud against the Defendants for misappropriated funds by the First Defendant, which allegedly involved a fraudulent sale of property. The claim was initiated after the First Defendant's criminal conviction. (Paras 2, 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The Court found no reasonable cause of action against the Second and Third Defendants, and concluded that the Plaintiff's claim was time-barred as it was filed beyond the six-year limitation period. (Paras 13, 22)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Plaintiff disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act. (Paras 1, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged fraud since November 2017, thus the limitation period commenced then, making the claim filed in December 2023 time-barred. (Paras 11, 13)
Result: Plaintiff's suit is struck out, with costs awarded to the Second and Third Defendants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for striking out claim (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of plaintiff's claims against defendants (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. limitation period analysis (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. time-barred claims and knowledge of fraud (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. consequences of time-barred actions (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. conclusion and order of court (Para 22) |
Enclosure 12: The Second And Third Defendants' Application To Strike Out The Plaintiffs Claim Under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a)(b) And/Or (d) Rules Of Court 2012
Introduction
[1] The Second Defendant and Third Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiff's claim is premised on three grounds. The first basis is on the ground that the Plaintiff had failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Second and Third Defendants that amounted to an abuse of the Court process. The second ground cited was that the Plaintiff's cause of action if at all, had exceeded the limitation period under s 6 Limitation Act 1953 . The final ground is that the cause of action in any event was estopped by the doctrine of laches.
[2] The suit filed by the Plaintiff against all the Defendants is for deceit, fraud, conspiracy and/or abuse of process. The background of the alleged deceit and fraud stemmed back from 3 March 2017. According to the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim (SoC), it was in 2016 that the Plaintiff discovered that between 2006 and 2016 the First Defendant had stolen the sum of RM1,585,231.49 from him by deceiving the Plaintiff to issue cheques for false insurance policies.
Whether There Was Reasonable Cause Of Action Disclosed In The Plaintiff's Writ And SoC
[3] This Court is mindful since limb 1(a) of r 19 was cited, only the review of the pleadings was required. The Plaintiff pleaded upon the said discovery back in 2016, a meeting was held with the First Defendant on 14 November 2016 where he had admitted to the misappropriation and had agreed to repay the said sum on behalf of himself and the Second Defendant (the First Defendant's wife). The manner was by transferring the ownership of their residence with the address of No 366 Jalan Samudra Timur 3, Taman Samudra, 68100 Batu Caves, Selangor (366 Samudra Timur).
[4] The very next day on 15 November 2016, the Plaintiff lodged a police report. The First Defendant was charged at the Kuala Lumpur Session Court on 4 April 2017 with 36 charges of criminal breach of trust. Fie had pleaded guilty on 13 April 2017. Upon conviction he was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 2 years and was imposed fines of RM1,500 per charge.
[5] After the police report was lodged but before the prosecution of the First Defendant in the criminal Court, the Plaintiff had commenced a civil suit at the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Suit 797) on 13 December 2016 to claim for the misappropriated sum by the First Defendant. An application for a Mareva Injunction was also filed to freeze all of the First Defendant's assets that included 366 Samudra Timur.
[6] In the Plaintiffs SoC here, it was then pleaded that the Second and the Third Defendants had at all material times known of the Mareva Injunction application as the cause papers was served at 366 Samudra Timur where the Second Defendant was residing and also as the legal counsel had also represented the Second Defendant. The Mareva Injunction was allowed by the High Court on 10 March 2017. That led to the setting aside application of the said Mareva Injunction by the First Defendant and the Second Defendant on 10 July 2017. The Second Defendant's affidavit dated 18 August 2017 that supported the setting aside application had disclosed amongst others that the Third Defendant was the purchaser of 366 Samudra Timur. On 21 November 2017 the Third Defendant had applied to intervene Suit 797 supported by her affidavit affirmed on 14 November 2017. The particulars of the alleged fraud immediately followed that paragraph in the Plaintiffs SoC here.
[7] The application to s
