JUDGMENT

Lim Beng Choon J:

On 21 May 1990 the plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant for damages for breach of promise to marry the plaintiff, interest and costs. For purpose of this judgment I need only to set out the following averments of the plaintiff as contained in the following paras. of her statement of claim endorsed in the writ:

3. The plaintiff first met the defendant sometime in the early part of 1982 through one Mr. Wong, their mutual friend. The plaintiff was at that time amang Lama, Kuala Lumpur and whereby as a result of the intimate relationship a child was delivered by the plaintiff on 20 July 1984.

The plaintiff then went on to aver that the defendant had since in breach of the promise refused to marry the plaintiff at all. In the premises the plaintiff has suffered humiliation and mental anguish and has suffered loss and damage.

In his statement of defence filed on 25 September 1990 the averments pertinent to this judgment are contained in the following para. of his statement of defence:

5. The defendant denies the allegation in para. 5 of the statement of claim and avers that the plaintiff knew that the defendant was at all material times a married man. At no time did the defendant ever state that he had matrimonial difficulties with his wife or that he ever intended to divorce her. The defendant denies ever having promised to marry the plaintiff.

6. The defendant denies requesting the plaintiff to give up her job as an insurance agent. The defendant reiterates that at no time did he ever promise to marry the defendant.

7. The defendant admits having sexual intercourse with the plaintiff on various occasions but avers that the plaintiff had invited the defendant to have sex with her in an attempt to induce him to buy an insurance policy from her. The plaintiff had even told the defendant that she separated from her husband and that she needed a man very badly.

8. The defendant denies ever having promised to marry the plaintiff. The defendant avers that at all material times the plaintiff herself was a married woman.

9. The defendant further avers that he was at all material times a married man and this fact was known to the plaintiff.

10. In any event the defendant avers that the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation under s. 6 of the Limitation Act 1953.

The plaintiff thereafter filed in her reply on 5 October 1990 in which she said:

1. Save and insofar as the defence consists of admission and save as hereinafter appears the plaintiff joins issue with the defendant therein.

2. As to para. 10 of the defence the plaintiff says that her action is not statute barred under s. 6 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff avers that although the defendant's initial promise to marry her was made sometime around July/August 1982, the defendant repeated and assured the plaintiff of the said promise right until the end of 1986. The plaintiff further avers that it was only sometime in 1987 that she came to realise that the defendant was not interested in pursuing with the marriage when the defendant's visits to her house became less frequent and his refusal to answer any of her telephone calls and alleging that he has nothing to do with her.

On 9 October 1990 the defendant thereupon made an application by way of summons-in-chambers for an order that:

(a) The plaintiff `s claim be struck out under O. 18 r. 19(1) (a) & (b) of the Rules of the High Court 1980;

(b) The costs of and incidental to this application be costs in the cause.

In support of his application the defendant affirmed an affidavit on 8 October 1990 in which he reiterated that he had never promised to marry the plaintiff and that in any event the plaintiff knew at all material times that he was a married man. This was apparent from the statement of claim itself. He was therefore informed presumably by his legal adviser and he verily believed that the plaintiff's claim was bad in law as she could not maintain a suit for breach of promise t