The Plaintiff's claim is barred by time, under Section 6 of the Limitation Act 1953, as the negligence occurred over six years before the claim was filed.

Akhtar Tahir J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff's appeal in this case is against the decision of the learned Sessions Judge who had disallowed his claim against the Defendants.

Brief Facts

[2] The Plaintiff's cause of action against the Defendants who were partners in a legal firm Tetuan Mohd Razak & Associates and who represented the Plaintiff in a civil suit WA-52NCVC-340-06-2017, is for negligence and breach of fiduciary duties causing the Plaintiff's claim being dismissed and the Defendants' ("original Defendants") counterclaim being allowed.

[3] The Plaintiff's claim was dismissed by the Sessions Court when the Defendants failed to comply with the pre-trial case management directives given by the Court. The original Defendants' counterclaim was allowed as a result of the non-appearance of the Plaintiff on the advice of the Defendants on the date for trial fixed by the Court.

[4] In this case, the timeline of the sequence of events is material. The pre-trial case management directives were given on 31 July 2017. The Plaintiff's claim was dismissed by the Court on 21 September 2017 for the non-compliance of the Court's directives by the Defendants acting as lawyers for the Plaintiff.

[5] The original Defendants' counterclaim was fixed for trial on 16 and 17 October 2017. On being represented by the Defendants that he need not attend on the date of hearing as it was just fixed for mediation, the Plaintiff did not attend the proceedings. The Plaintiff was then informed that judgment was entered against him on the original Defendants' counterclaim whereby judgment in default of appearance was given.

[6] The present claim is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants on 12 June 2024.

The Issue

[7] A pertinent issue in this case, looking at the timeline, is whether the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants is time-barred.

Limitation Of Time

[8] The Plaintiff argued that his claim against the Defendants accrued only on his failure to exhaust all his rights against the original Defendants. These rights, according to the Plaintiff, were only extinguished on 29 January 2019 when the Court of Appeal had dismissed his final appeal.

[9] The Plaintiff relied on the case of Julian Chong Sook Keok & Anor v. Lee Kim Noor & Anor ; ; [2024] 5 CLJ 519which ruled that the limitation period "runs from when the damage occurs and not when the negligent act or omission occurred".

[10] The Defendant relies on s 6 of the Limitation Act 1953 to argue that the Plaintiff's claim is time-barred. Section 6 (1) of the stipulates as follows:

(1) Save as hereinafter provided the following actions shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, that is to say:

(a) actions founded on a contract or on tort;

(b) actions to enforce a recognisance;

(c) actions to enforce an award;

(d) actions to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any written law other than a penalty or forfeiture or of a sum by way of penalty or forfeiture.

[11] It is a clear language of the law that the time limitation accrues from the date on which the cause of action occurred. In the face of the clear language of the law, the judicial decision relied upon by the Plaintiff as quoted above cannot prevail over written law.

[12] In complying with the provision of the law, this Court rules that, as the cause of action of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty occurred in 2017, the Plaintiff's claim in this case has exceeded 6 years and was therefore time-barred.

Conclusion