Acknowledgment of debt requires specificity under the Limitation Act, and electronic messages can satisfy formal requirements if identifiable and authentic.

[1] By an agreement entered into between the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) and the defendants in 1997, the appellants had engaged the services of the 1st defendant (the company) through the 2nd defendant (respondent) to build and construct a factory on a piece of land bearing the postal address of Lot 6486 No 2 Jalan PJS 3/2, Taman Medan, Mukim Petaling, off Old Klang Road, 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan (the said land). For easy reference, collectively the company and the respondent will be referred to as the defendants.

[2] Due to the requirements demanded by Capital Control measures imposed by the Malaysian Central Bank, and in order to facilitate progressive payments in respect of the construction of the factory, the appellants and the defendants agreed that monies meant for the progressive payments be deposited in the company's account in RHB Bank Bhd. The sum deposited in September 1998 was RM1,310,000.00.

[3] By December 1999 the construction of the factory was completed and after progressive payments had been made, the company vide a letter dated 17 December 1999 duly signed by the respondent, confirmed that the outstanding amount due to be refunded to the appellants was RM589,055.61 (the outstanding sum). This sum was not promptly refunded and a grace period of six months was granted to the defendants to refund it. Exchanges took place and on 14 November 2005 the appellants had by a Short Messaging Service (SMS) demanded from the defendants the return of the outstanding sum together with the agreed interest as compensation by 24 December 2005. On 5 September 2006, the respondent by an SMS sent to the appellants the following message (verbatim):

"Eddy sorry hear ur father death, regarding d loan repayment sorting soon not 2 wory now Im in UK London next week."

[4] As the outstanding sum was still not refunded the appellants filed the action against the defendants. The accumulated sum claimed by the appellants totalled RM1,531,538.93 as at 31 December 2007. In substance the appellants' case was that the above SMS message clearly acknowledged the debt, and expressly admitted that the respondent was aware of the outstanding sum and the agreed interest as compensation, due and payable to the appellants. The appellants also pleaded that on 28 December 2007 the defendants had acknowledged the debts.

[5] Much of the agreed issues at the High Court centred on the acknowledgment in the SMS viz whether it was a fresh acknowledgment, and its effect under the Limitation Act 1953 (the Act), the issue of limitation being the mainstay of the respondent's defence. The respondent pleaded that the appellants' cause of action arose on 7 July 1999, or when the factory was handed over also in 1999, or 17 December 1999 when the company issued a letter together with the statement of account. The writ was filed on 7 March 2008. Therefore by the time the action was filed limitation had set in. The eventual High Court's decision on 22 September 2010 was in favour of the appellants.

[6] The learned trial judge found the following. The appellants had placed RM1,310,000.00 in the name of the company and upon completion of the factory's construction a final progressive claim was paid out. The final amount paid out was RM434,169.85 thus leaving a balance of RM589,055.61.The company vide letter dated 17 December 1999, duly signed by the respondent, stated that the amount was due to be refunded to the appellants. The learned judge held that the defence of time bar was not made out by virtue of the 5 September 2006 SMS being sent out acknowledging the debt.The authenticity of the SMS was verified and the respondent had admitted sending out the SMS to the appellant. The learned judge held that time started to run afresh from that date. Even