1. Debt recovery for construction project refund — Claim filed after statutory period — Dispute over acknowledgment of debt and personal liability of company director. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
Back
Next 
2012 MarsdenLR 381
COURT OF APPEAL (PUTRAJAYA)
ZAINUN ALI, FCJ
Yee Weng Kai – Plaintiff
Versus
Yam Kong Seng & Anor – Defendant
CIVIL APPEAL NO W–02–2935 OF 2010
Advocates:
M Menon (V Mugunthan with him) (Jaffar & Menon) for the appellant.
Malik Imtiaz (Ronnie Yoon with him) (Scully Yoon) for the respondents.
M Menon (V Mugunthan with him) (Jaffar & Menon) for the appellant.
Malik Imtiaz (Ronnie Yoon with him) (Scully Yoon) for the respondents.
An SMS does not constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt under the Limitation Act 1953 as it is not "in writing and signed." Furthermore, directors are not personally liable for a company's debts unless a personal guarantee exists or the corporate veil is pierced due to fraud.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act 1953 - Sections 6(1), 26(2) and 27(1) - Acknowledgment of debt - For an acknowledgment to be valid, it must be in writing and signed by the person making it (Para 12) - To satisfy the statute, the debt must be quantified in figures or be capable of ascertainment by calculation or extrinsic evidence without further agreement between parties (Para 15) - There must be an unequivocal admission of a subsisting debt (Para 17) - An electronic short messaging service (SMS) does not satisfy the requirement of being in writing and signed under Section 27(1) and cannot constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt (Para 19).
(B) Company Law - Separate Legal Entity - A company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its officers and shareholders (Para 25) - A director acting on behalf of a company is not personally liable for the company's breaches or debts unless there are express provisions, such as a personal guarantee or letter of indemnity (Para 25).
(C) Company Law - Piercing the Corporate Veil - The corporate veil may only be lifted in special circumstances or where there is sufficient justification, such as fraud or where the company is a mere facade (Paras 28-30).
Facts of the case:
The respondents engaged a company to construct a factory and deposited funds for progress payments. Following completion, the respondents sought the return of an outstanding sum. The action was initiated more than six years after the cause of action arose. The lower court held the managing director of the company personally liable, relying on an SMS sent by the director as a fresh acknowledgment of the debt.
Findings of Court:
The SMS was not an unequivocal admission of a subsisting debt as it did not quantify the amount and was ambiguous. Furthermore, it did not meet the statutory requirement of being in writing and signed. Consequently, the action was time-barred. Additionally, the director was acting as an agent of the company and could not be held personally liable for the company's debt in the absence of a personal guarantee or evidence of fraud.
Issues: Whether an SMS constitutes a valid acknowledgment of debt under the Limitation Act 1953 to restart the limitation period, and whether a director can be held personally liable for the debts of a company.
Ratio Decidendi: A valid acknowledgment under Section 26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 must be in writing and signed per Section 27(1) and must unequivocally admit a quantified or ascertainable debt; an SMS fails these requirements. Under the principle of separate legal entity, directors are not personally liable for company debts unless the corporate veil is pierced due to fraud or other special circumstances.
Result: Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an SMS constitutes a valid acknowledgment of debt under the Limitation Act 1953 and whether a company director is personally liable for corporate debts. (Para 7 , 8 , 21 )
3. SMS failed to quantify debt or meet signature requirements; no evidence of fraud or personal guarantee to justify piercing the corporate veil. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 )
4. Valid acknowledgment under the Limitation Act must be in writing, signed, and unequivocally admit a quantified subsisting debt; directors are not personally liable for corporate debts. (Para 12 , 17 , 19 , 25 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Costs awarded to appellant. (Para 34 )
6. What are the requirements for a valid acknowledgment of debt under the Limitation Act 1953?
An acknowledgment must be in writing, signed by the person making it, and contain an unequivocal admission of a subsisting debt that is quantified in figures or capable of ascertainment by calculation or extrinsic evidence without further agreement between the parties. (Para 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. Does an electronic short message (SMS) constitute a signed writing for the purpose of acknowledging a debt under the Limitation Act 1953?
No, an SMS is not considered to be in writing and signed as required by section 27(1) of the Act, as it does not necessarily prove the sender actually wrote the message. (Para 19 )
8. When can a company director be held personally liable for the debts of the company?
A director is generally not personally liable for corporate debts as the company is a separate legal entity. Personal liability only arises if there are express provisions in the contract, a personal guarantee, or where the corporate veil is pierced due to fraud or the company being a mere facade. (Para 25 , 28 , 30 )
Ramly Ali JCA (delivering judgment of the court)
THE APPEAL
[1]This is an appeal against the whole decision of the learned High Court judge, dated 22 September 2010 allowing the respondents' claim against the appellant with costs after full trial. The appellant was the second defendant at the court below.
THE RESPONDENTS' CLAIM
[2]The respondents commenced an action in the High Court against the appellant and the first defendant for debt owing to them. The respondents' claim was that they had engaged the first defendant (a company where the appellant was a director at the material time) through the appellant to build 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.
[3]The respondents claimed they had placed certain amounts of monies in the name of the first defendant to be withdrawn for progress payments for the construction of the said factory. The said factory was completed and the respondents asked for the return of the outstanding sum of RM589,055.61.
[4]In their statement of claim, the respondents sought the following remedies, namely:
(a)the sum of RM1,531,583.93 due and payable to the respondents as at 31 December 2007;
(b)the interest of 1% per month on the outstanding sum of RM589,055.61 as agreed compensation for the loss and/or damage suffered by the respondents from 1 January 2008 until the date of full settlement;
(c)costs on a full indemnity solicitor-client basis; and
(d)any other further orders and/or reliefs that the court deems fit and proper.
[5]The matter went for full trial before the learned High Court judge. The respondents led evidence by calling three witnesses and the appellant by calling one witness. As against the appellant (the second defendant in the suit) judgment was entered in favour of the respondent and the appellant was ordered to pay the judgment sum of RM589,055.61 with simple interest of 1% per month.
[6]Dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellant filed a notice of appeal. Hence the present appeal before us.
OUR FINDINGS
[7]The first issue raised by the appellant at the High Court as well as before us, was the issue of limitation under the Limitation Act 1953. The appellant contended that the cause of action first arose either on 7 July 1999 (when the factory was completed and handed over to Bryong Sdn Bhd's tenant) or on 17December 1999 when the first defendant issued a letter together with the statement of account (as at 30 November 1999). The writ and the statement of claim in the present action was filed on 7 March 2008 ie eight years and three months later, which clearly is outside the prescribed period of six years under s6(1) of the Limitation Act 1953. The six years period would have lapsed on 16December 2005.
[8]The learned High Court judge agreed with the respondents and found that there was an acknowledgment of debt. She relied on the short messaging service ('SMS') that the appellant had sent to PW1 on 5 September 2006. The learned judge concluded that the SMS amount to a fresh acknowledgement of the debt and therefore time started to run afresh from that date (5 September 2006). Therefore the learned judge concluded that the defence of limitation as raised by the appellant does not have any merit at all.
[9]The respondents' claim against the appellant in the present action basically is based on contract which must be filed in court within the period of six years from the date of the cause of action as provided for under s 6(1) of the Limitation Act 1953. The time begins to run from the earliest time at which the respondents (as the plaintiffs) could have brought the action (see Reeves v Butcher
[10]However, s 26(2) of the Limitation Act 1953 recognises that the right of action in cases where the debtor acknowledges the claim or make any payment in respect thereof shall be deemed to have accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment.
[11]Section 26(2) of the Ac
