The limitation period for tortious claims begins when actual damage occurs, not from the date of the negligent act or agreement.

JUDGMENT

Mary Lim Thiam Suan FCJ:

[1] The appellants, husband and wife, sued their lawyers for professional negligence and negligent misstatement relating to the preparation of a Sales and Purchase Agreement in 2004. The suit was filed in 2015. The claim was allowed by the High Court after a full trial. The decision was, however, set aside on appeal because the claim was held to be time-barred under the Limitation Act of 1953 [Act 254]. The High Court did not deal with this issue, although it was pleaded and submitted on by the parties.

[2] Leave was granted on the following two questions of law to be determined by this Court; both questions concern the issue of limitation:

First Question

In a tortious claim arising from a negligently prepared agreement, does the time-period for limitation begin to run from the date of the impugned agreement; or does time begin to run from the date of an infringement or threat of infringement of the claimant's right caused by the impugned agreement?

Second Question

In respect of when the limitation period starts to run in a claim of negligence, is the Court of Appeal's decision in AmBank (M) Bhd v. Abdul Aziz Hassan & Ors, [2010] 3 MLJ 784 still good law in light of the recent Court of Appeal decisions of Sabarudin Othman & Anor v. Malayan Banking Berhad And Other Appeals and Ambank (M) Bhd v. Kamariyah Hamdan & Anor, [2013] 5 MLJ 448?

[3] After a full hearing, we found merits in the appellants' arguments and unanimously allowed the appeal. We set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and restored the decision of the High Court.

The Sales And Purchase Agreement (SPA)

[4] The appellants purchased landed property from a housing developer, Reka Mesra Sdn Bhd. They engaged RFC Consultancy Sdn Bhd to build a threestorey semi'detached house on that property. The respondents prepared both the Sales and Purchase Agreement [SPA] and construction agreement for the appellants [the 1st respondent is a partner in the 2nd respondent firm of solicitors]. Both agreements are dated 22 April 2004. The respondents left Item 3 of the First Schedule to the SPA for details on "Name of Bank/Financier", blank. This signified that the property was not encumbered or charged.

[5] The house was completed in 2006 and the appellants moved in. They and their children now reside in that house. That family home is part of a housing community known as Krystal Garden.

[6] In 2009, the appellants learnt from their neighbours that several plots of land in Krystal Garden were encumbered, charged to Bank Islam, and that a Letter of Disclaimer from Bank Islam was required. This prompted the appellants to require this Letter of Disclaimer through the respondents. The respondents, in turn, wrote to Bank Islam, on 30 July 2009, requesting for this Letter of Disclaimer. The bank did not respond.

[7] On 15 June 2011, Reka Mesra Sdn Bhd was wound'up. In November 2011, the appellants received a letter from Pejabat Tanah & Galian [PTG] informing them that landowners who do not have a Letter of Disclaimer would be required to pay a redemption sum as it was Bank Islam that had initiated the winding'up proceedings against Reka Mesra Sdn Bhd. Because of this, the appellants, once again, approached the respondents in January 2012, this time, asking for a copy of the respondents' search at the Land Office, presumably done when preparing the SPA.

[8] On 16 February 2012, the appellants attended a meeting at the office of the PTG, convened specifically to discuss the matter of titles in Krystal Garden. It was at that meeting that the appellants learnt that their properties were charged to Bank Islam.

[9] Around this same time in February 2012, the respondents responded to the appellants' query on the search at the Land Office by email. They told the appellants that they were unable to locate their documents on the search. In March 2012, the respondents speculated to the appellants that the search must have yielded a negative result, which is why they were u