The limitation period for claims may be extended through continued negotiations between parties, impacting the accrual date of the cause of action.

[1] The appellant RHB Bank Berhad appealed to this court against the dismissal of its claim against the respondent Kwan Chew Holdings Sdn Bhd to recover inter alia the total outstanding amount from the facility of RM1,932,816.83 due as at 29 February 1996.

[2] The respondent cross-appealed, seeking to vary the order of the High court as follows:

a. That part of the judgment allowing the appellant's/plaintiff 's claim against the respondent/defendant for RM2,000.00 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment to date of realisation be set aside.

b. That in addition to dismissal of the appellant's/plaintiff's claim on the ground that the claim was time-barred under s 6(1) Limitation Act 1953 , the High court ought to have held that the appellant's/plaintiff 's claim was also time-barred arising from the letter dated 6 February 1985 which constituted a notice of demand and accordingly, the plaintiff 's cause of action against the defendant arose at that time and the writ which was filed on 5 April 1996 was statute-barred.

[3] Having heard the parties on their respective appeal and cross-appeal, this court:

a. Allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High court;

b. Entered judgment in terms of prayers a-c in the statement of claim;

c. Dismissed the cross-appeal;

d. Fixed costs RM20,000.00 here and below; and

e. Ordered the deposit be refunded.

[4] The reasons follow below.

[5] The primary issue before the High court and on appeal was whether theappellant's claim is statute-barred under s 6(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 , in that the action has been brought after the expiration of six years from which the cause of action accrued.

[6] A secondary issue was whether any expiry of the limitation period (if any, which was denied by the plaintiff) has been revived by the defendant's subsequent acceptance of further funds from the plaintiff and by the defendant's acceptance of the 5^th letter of offer dated 19 April 1990 on 8 May 1990.

[7] Section 6 (1) of the Limitation Act 1953 (Revised 1981) Act 254 provides:

"(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) ..."

[8] In this case, the subject matter concerns outstanding sums for overdraft facilities granted to finance a housing project.

[9] The writ was filed on 5 April 1996. The filing of the writ gave occasion for submissions in this case, not as to liability or quantum, but as to whether the action is time-barred

[10] For the appellant, it was submitted that time began to run from 19 April 1990 for the reason that:

a. the letter of 28 December 1983 to the appellant was an approval for an overdraft facility on the condition of repayment by redemption sum of RM10,000.00 per unit on the 40 units charged or to be fully settled within two years whichever is the earlier; and

b. the letter of 19 April 1990 to the appellant was for further bridging finance of RM45,000.00 to secure Certificate of Fitness for Occupation and the redemption sum is the sale and purchase price of the relevant housing unit.

[11] For the respondent, it was submitted that time began to run from 28 December 1985. From that, the submission went on to refer to para 8 of the statement of claim that the respondent was given notices of default in 1985 (RR3:224) and 1986 (RR3:234). The latter giving notice that if the excess of RM113,248.38 as at 23 February 1986 was not settled within seven days, the appellant would not hesitate to institute appropriate legal action. The submission pursued with the argument that the letter of 19 April 1990 for further bridging finance of RM45,000.00 to secure Certificate of