Claims under the Limitation Act must be filed within statutory time limits; lack of evidence does not negate the burden of proof.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by Syarikat Kemajuan Timbermine Sdn Bhd (the plaintiff in the High Court) pursuant to leave of this Court given on 22 January 2014 to appeal against the whole decision of the Court of Appeal on the following question of law:

"Where a defending party had elected not to call any evidence during trial, in deciding whether the claimant has met the burden of proof, can the appellate Court reverse and substitute the factual findings of a trial Court with findings based solely on a construction of the documentary evidence in a vacuum, where such construction is inconsistent with:

(a) the unchallenged oral testimony of the claimants witness;

(b) abandonment of defences by the defending party; and/or

(c) adverse inferences to be drawn from the failure of the defending party to call any witnesses."

[2] It would be convenient to describe the parties in this judgment as they appear in the High Court, namely the appellant as the plaintiff and the respondent as the defendant.

An Overview Of The Dispute

[3] The subject matter of the dispute between the parties revolved around a timber logging concession over 510,239 acres of land in the State of Kelantan for a period of thirty three years awarded to the plaintiff by Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan Darul Naim (the defendant in the High Court).

[4] The plaintiff brought an action in the High Court at Kota Bharu against the defendant for damages based on a wrongful termination of the timber logging concession agreements made between the plaintiff and the defendant.

[5] The High Court had on 30 December 2009 allowed the plaintiffs claim. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal and on 6 August 2012, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court orders. Hence, this appeal to this Court.

Background Facts

[6] The background facts of the case which led to the plaintiffs appeal to this Court have been well set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. We will rely on them to a large extent and set them out in the following paragraphs in so far they are relevant to the issues which arise for decision in this appeal.

[7] Pursuant to an agreement in writing dated 20 July 1964 ("Principal Agreement") made between the defendant and Timbermine Industrial Corporation Limited ("the company"), the defendant granted to the company, among others, the right to log and extract timber in accordance with the annual-extraction-quota in an area extending to 510,239 acres ("Specified Area"). The following are, among others, the most important expressed terms of the Principal Agreement:

(i) That the defendant shall give full authority to the company or its subsidiary company, their servants, agents, workmen, and assigns to enter the Specified Area for a period of thirty three years from the date of the Principal Agreement;

(ii) That the Specified Area forming part of the state land extended to 510,239 acres;

(iii) That the company shall pay royalties to the defendant in the sum of RM2 million by way of two instalments of RM1 million each, the first instalment to be made upon the signing of the Principal Agreement;

(iv) That the company was to give priority to logging in approximately 133,360 acres of the Specified Area consisting of jungle land which was required for land development by the defendant ("Development Areas"). The working schedule for the clearance of the Development Areas apart from being delineated in the Principal Agreement was to be fixed and agreed by the parties hereto from time to time provided that not less than 30,000 acres was to be cleared in the first six years from the date