2010 MarsdenLR 3724 ; 2010 MarsdenLR 1

TENGKU BAHARUDIN SHAH, KANG HWEE GEE, ABDUL WAHAB PATAIL
WTK HOLDINGS BHD – Appellant
Versus
FOO SAE HENG & ANOR – Respondent

The burden of proof regarding limitation claims falls on the plaintiff to show that a part-payment was made on behalf of the defendant, not a third party.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act 1953 (Revised 1981) - Section 6(1) - General principle regarding limitation defenses - Burden lies on the party asserting the defense to establish timeliness of the claim (Para 4) - The question of whether a payment constitutes part-payment affecting limitation timelines (Para 5).

(B) The defendant's evidence of divestment and lack of approval of payments were vital factors in assessing agency (Paras 10-12).

Facts of the case:
The appellant, WTK Holdings Bhd, appealed against a High Court decision which permitted the respondents’ claim for specific performance and balance payment based on a disputed part-payment made in 1997.

Findings of Court:
The High Court had found the claim was not time-barred based on asserted agency; however, this finding was deemed unsupported by evidence in appellate review (Paras 13-20).

Issues: Whether the claim was time-barred due to the nature of a part-payment by a third party and the relationship between the parties (Paras 5).

Ratio Decidendi: The court reversed the lower court's ruling, emphasizing the need for plaintiffs to prove that the payment was made on behalf of the defendant, pointing out gaps in fulfilling this burden of proof (Paras 20-21).

Result: Appeal allowed, judgment of the High Court set aside.