Ajaib Singh J:

This was an application by the intended plaintiff for leave pursuant to and for the purposes under Limitation Act 1953 in respect of an intended action by the intended plaintiff against the intended defendant for damages for personal injuries occasioned to the intended plaintiff by reason of the negligence on the part of the intended defendant, his servant or agent. The form used by the intended plaintiff is to be found in Chitty's Queen's Bench Forms20th Edn., Form 1510.

The facts leading to the application and which were not in dispute are set out in the supporting affidavit of Mr. R.K. Nathan counsel for the intended plaintiff. On 22 September 1974 the intended plaintiff received injuries in a motor accident involving motor vehicle no. BM 691 and on 5 October 1975 he instructed Mr. Nathan to pursue a claim for damages. On 26 October 1974 Mr. Nathan wrote to the OCPD at Klang requesting for the relevant documents pertaining to the accident but there was no response. On 24 March 1978 Mr. Nathan wrote to the RIMV for particulars of motor vehicle BM 691. On 24 April 1978 the RIMV acknowledged receipt of the letter but gave no particulars. Mr. Nathan then sought the assistance of the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB). On 17 July 1978 the MIB issued a circular to its members in the following terms -

Accident on 22.9.74 - m/cycle BM 691.

The Bureau has been advised of the above accident.

Will the member concerned who was on risk advise the Bureau

(a) the name and address of the registered owner at the date of the accident;

(b) the insurance policy effective at the time of the accident not later than 7 August 1978.

If there is no response, the Bureau will investigate and if it subsequently transpires that there is insurance coverage by a member, the Bureau will have no alternative but to look to that member for reimbursement of all expenses incurred.

There was no response to this circular.

On 11 March 1980 Mr. Nathan received a letter from the MIB stating that Prudential Assurance Company Ltd. had been retained by them to investigate on their behalf. Mr. Nathan by letter dated 15 March 1980 wrote back to the MIB offering assistance in the investigations. As the matter would have been time-barred by 22 September 1980 Mr. Nathan sought and received confirmation from the MIB on 2 October 1980 that the MIB would waive the time-bar aspect. Finally Mr. Nathan received copy of a letter dated 27 February 1981 by the MIB and addressed to Malaysia British Assurance Sdn. Bhd. as follows:

I refer to Circular No: 131 of 1978 and in particular the last paragraph.

Investigations disclose you as on risk vide C/N 28042822 for 22 March 1974 to 21 March 1975.

By copy of this letter I am asking third party lawyers to deal direct.

Please reimburse the Bureau RM190 adjusters fees incurred.

Upon obtaining particulars of the insured (the intended defendant) from the Malaysia British Assurance Sdn. Bhd. on 16 March 1981 Mr. Nathan sent a notice to the intended defendant by AR. registered post on 26 March 1981 to admit liability or face action but this letter was returned undelivered. On 16 May 1981 Mr. Nathan wrote to Malaysia British Assurance Sdn. Bhd. to negotiate a settlement of the intended plaintiff's claim and on 28 May 1981 a reply was sent by the solicitors for the insurers to the effect that the intended plaintiff's action was statute-barred.

Mr. R. K. Nathan states further in his affidavit that it was only on 27 February 1981 that he came to know that Malaysia British Assurance Sdn. Bhd. were on risk through the letter from MIB and this was as a result of continued efforts by him and the MIB since the date of the accident on 22 September 1974. And it was only on 16 March 1981 that he got the particulars of the intended defendant from the insurers.

Mr. David Lingam for the intended defendant admits that the insurers had received the circular by the MIB but contended that the present application should be dismissed as the Court