Contents : Cause of Action Locus Standi Limitation Period Jurisdiction of Court & Mode of beginning (in s separate note, namely bidang kuasa sivil mahkamah2 di malaysia) P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!

1. 1
Preliminary Matters to be Considered
Before Commencing a Civil Suit
I. CAUSE OF ACTION
A. DEFINITION
1. every fact which is necessary for the Plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to
an order or judgment in a civil action - Nasri v mesah
2. x include every evidence which is necessary to prove each fact
3. Example:
Contract Cause of action for contract accrues on breach of the contract
Defamation Atip Bin Ali 3 ingredients that constitute defamation must have taken place i.e.
(i) words that are defamatory to the P;
(ii) the defamatory words refer to the P;
(iii) the defamatory words were published to third parties.
5 prelim matters
Cause of
Action
Locus Standi
Limitation
Period
Jurisdiction of
Court
Mode of
beginning

2. 2
B. SELALUNYA ISU FASAL CAUSE OF ACTION IALAH:
1. Whether all the ingredients that constitute the CAUSE OF ACTION have
occurred?
C. CONTOH CAUSE OF ACTION BELUM MATANG
1. Taib bin Awang v Mohamad bin Abdullah
Facts  P claimed malicious prosecution against the D on the grounds that he had been
wrongfully prosecuted in the Kadi’s Court.
 The P was found guilt in the Kadi’s Court and sentenced to 2 weeks imprisonment.
 When the case was heard, the case in the Kadi’s Court was still under appeal.
Held  since the conviction was still under appeal, it was premature for the P to bring this
action.
 Hence, P’s claim failed because the cause of action was incomplete
D. EXAMPLE KES HUTANG YANG PERLU DIBAYAR MELALUI INSTALMENT
1. Sio Koon Lim v S.B. Mehtra
Facts - plaintiff contributed RM100,000 towards the partnership.
- By an agreement it was agreed that the defendant shall pay the sum by way of
installment.
- However there was no default clause specifying all payments will be due and owing if
the defendant defaulted payment of any installment.
- defendant defaulted payment of the instalment
- P brought the action for all the payments due and owing in 1972 and later amended
the writ and new prayer was added for the payment of any sum found due on the
taking of the accounts.

3. 3
Held  plaintiff at the time of filling the writ did not have any cause of action against the
instalments, which were not due
 plaintiff cannot file a fresh action as the limitation period has already set in.
E. RES JUDICATA
1. Definition : Commercial Finance Bhd v Kawal Teliti S/B
a) Refers to a matter which has been adjudicated by a court;
b) One should not be tried twice for the same cause of action;
c) There should be finality in litigation.
II. LOCUS STANDI
A. DEFINITION
1. A right to bring a claim to court
2. Right of a party to appear and be heard by a tribunal.
B. TEST FOR LOCUS STANDI
1. GOV v Lim Kit Siang
Facts Lim Kit Siang file suit sebab nak bantah pembinaan high way somewhere
Held  No locus standi sbb lim kit siang tak suffer sendiri any damage in consequence
of the high way construction
 it has not been shown that the rights or interests of Mr. Lim Kit Siang have been
adversely affected over and above that ‘of the ordinary taxpayer, motorist and
frequent users of highways’ as he described himself.
Principles 2 important rules to determine locus standi:
(a) P must prove an interest in the issues raised in the proceeding;

4. 4
(b) where the private P relies on an interest in the enforcement of a public right
and not of a private right, standing will be denied unless the AG consents or the
P can demonstrate some special interest beyond that possessed by the public
generally.
2. When test in lim kit siang will not be applicable? - Malaysian Trade Union
Congress & Ors v Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi
 test in Lim Kit Siang’s case was not propounded in respect of judicial review proceedings
but to a claim in private law.
 In the instant case, the appellants made the application under O.53 of the ROC to seek
remedies which were classified as public law remedies.
 As such, the test propounded in the Lim Kit Siang’s case was not applicable to the present
proceedings.
 Instead the ‘adversely affected test’, a single test for all the remedies provided for
under O 53 ROC was to be preferred.”
 “In order for an applicant to pass the ‘adversely affected test’, the applicant had to show he
had a real and genuine interest in the subject matter…”
C. ADVERSELY AFFECTED TEST - ORDER 53 OF RULES OF HIGH COURT 1980
1. ORDER 53
prescribes the mode
and procedure by
which an application
for judicial review is to
be made.
It was inserted into
the RHC after the
Supreme Court's
decision in Lim Kit
Siang.
allows any person who was "adversely
affected by the decision of any public
authority" to apply for judicial review –
means kalau x puas hati ngan kerajaan,
x yah la file kes, just apply judicial
review

5. 5
2. Tengku Jaffar bin Tengku Ahmad v Karpal Singh
3. QSR Brands Bhd v Suruhanjaya Sekuriti & Anor [2006]
 In order to pass the "adversely affected" test, an applicant has to at least show that he has a
real and genuine interest in the subject matter.
 is not necessary for the applicant to establish infringement of a private right or the suffering
of special damage.
D. HAK MENDAKWA SEBAGAI PEEMEGANG AMANAH/ WAKIL MELALUI PEGUAM/
SENDIRI - O. 5, R. 6
Right to sue in person (O. 5, r. 6)
(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and Order 76, rule 2, any person, whether or not he sues as
trustee or personal representative or in any other representative capacity, may begin
and carry on proceedings in the Court by a solicitor or in person.
(2) Except as expressly provided by or under any written law, a body corporate may not begin
or carry on any such proceedings otherwise than by a solicitor.
1. Anne Theresa De Souza v Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS)
Facts Pl ni tukar nama (drpd nama cina kpd nama Anne ni), lepas tu dia file OS
Issue Boleh ke file a suit guna nama baru tu ?
Held  Order 5 r. 6(1) Rules of the High Court 1980 provides that any person other than a
person under disability or body corporate may begin and carry on proceedings in
the High Court by a solicitor or in person.
 The words “in person” there, in view of the exception, must necessarily refer to a
natural person who can be legally identified.
 The appellant remained a non-entity, could not initiate the OS in the High Court,
and had no capacity to come before this court by way of appeal against the

6. 6
decision made, which was itself in the circumstances a nullity.
III. LIMITATION PERIOD
A. RATIONALE
1. to discourage Plaintiff from sleeping on his rights.
B. LIMITATION ACT 1953
1. Section 4:
Limitation not to operate as a bar unless specially pleaded
Nothing in this Act shall operate as a bar to an action unless this Act has been expressly pleaded
as a defence thereto in any case where under any written law relating to civil procedure for the
time being in force such a defence is required to be so pleaded.
It is simply means:
a) Limitation must be specifically pleaded.
b) Limitation is not a bar to an action but merely a defence.
c) Defendant may either plead in his defence or apply to strike out
plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the action is frivolous, vexatious and an
abuse of the process of the court.
2. Keadaan2 dan limit masanya
Keadaan Limitation period
6(1)(a) action founded on contract or tort 6 years from the date on which the cause
of action accrued.

7. 7
6(3) Action upon a judgment 12 years from the date the judgment
becomes enforceable.
9(1) Action to recover land 12 years from the date on which the right
of action accrued.
21(1) Action to recover principal secured by a
charge or to enforce charge
12 years from the date when the right to
receive the money accrued.
22(1) action on fraudulent breach of trust or
recovery of trust property or proceeds
thereof in the possession of trustees.
No limit
22(2) for actions based other breaches of trust 6 years from the date on which the right
of action accrued.
23 claim to the personal estate of a deceased
person or to any share or interest therein
(whether under a will or intestacy)
12 years from the date the right to receive
the share or interest accrues.
29 (a) the action is based upon fraud of
the defendant of his agent or of any
person through whom he claims or his
agent; or
(b) the right of action is concealed by the
fraud of any such person;
(c) the action is for relief from the
consequences of a mistake;
The period of limitation shall not begin to
run until the plaintiff has discovered the
fraud or the mistake, as the case may be,
or could with reasonable diligence have
discovered it.

8. 8
3. Application s. 6 (1) (a)
a) dalam tort cases, , limitation period is 6 years from the date damage
occurs
b) In negligence cases, a breach of duty is irrelevant if there is no damage.
c) For latent (concealed) damage, limitation period begins from the date
damage occurred and not from the moment one knew of the damage.
d) Pirelli Cable Works v Oscar (1983)
 a cause of action in negligence in the workmanship of a building accrued at the date when
physical damage occurred to the building, by the formation of cracks, as a result of
defect, whether or not the damage could have been discovered with reasonable diligence
at that date by the Plaintiff.
 Therefore, the P’s claim was time barred since the cause action accrued in April 1970 when
damage in the form of cracks at the top of the chimney came into existence.
4. Application s. 22(1):
a) Palaniappa Chettiar v Lakshamanan Chettiar (1983)
5. Application s. 29
a) Limitation period v equity will not allow a statute to be used as an
instrument of fraud
b) Sivapiran v Lim Yoke Kong [1992]
Facts  PL was knocked down by the defendant on a motorcycle on the 1st day of 1977,
 PL’s solicitors sought to identify the defendant’s insurers but to no avail until the 1984,
that is, when the six year limitation period had passed.
Held  defendants had wilfully concealed themselves from the knowledge of the plaintiff and

9. 9
thus the case came under fraud
 The plaintiff’s claim therefore, was not time barred after all.
C. FUNGSI LIMITATION PERIOD : TENTUKAN BILA PALING AWAL PL BOLEH AMBIL
TINDAKAN
1. Nik Che Kok v Public Bank Bhd
Issue whether the cause of action in the demand notice accrued from the date of notice.
Held  the earliest time the respondent could have commenced a suit was soon after
issuing the notice of demand of April 2, 1986.
 Therefore, since the suit was filed more than 6 years after the cause of action
accrued, the suit was filed more than 6 years after the cause of action accrued, the
suit was statute-barred pursuant to s 6(1)(a) of Limitation Act.
D. L.P TIDAK BERMULA LEPAS COA DAH HABIS TERJADI – BERMULA ONCE PLAINTIFF
DAH ADA SEBAB
1. Lim Kean v Choo Koon - Limitation period does not begin to run until there
is a complete cause of action and a cause of action is complete when all the facts
which are material to be proved to entitle the Plaintiff to succeed have occurred.
E. EXTENSION OF LIMITATION IN CASE OF DISABILITY
1. S. 24(1) LA 1953
If a right of action accrued to a person under disability, the action may be brought (subject to S.
6(4), 8 and 29) at any time before the expiration of 6 years when such person ceased to be
under a disability or died, whichever event occurred first, notwithstanding that the period of
limitation has expired.

10. 10
2. disability mean? - S. 2(2) Limitation Act - “A person is deemed to be under
a disability while he is an infant or of unsound mind.”
3. Example : A minor who was born in 1990 had an accident in 1992. Here,
limitation period starts to run only in 2008 i.e. when he attains the age of majority of
18 years old. He has 6 years from 2008 to commence an action against the
tortfeasor.
F. FRESH ACCRUAL OF ACTION ON ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Limitation Act 1953
26(1)(a) Where a right of action to recover land has accrued and the person in
possession acknowledges the title of the person to whom the right
accrued, the right shall be deemed to be accrued on and not before the
acknowledgement.
26(1)(b) Where a right of action to enforce a charge has accrued and the chargee
or the person liable for the debt makes any payment, the right shall be
deemed to have accrued on or not before the date of the last payment
26(2) Where the right of action has accrued to recover and any debt or other
liquidated pecuniary claim, or any claim to the personal estate of a
deceased person or to any share or interest therein, and the person liable
or accountable thereof acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in
respect thereof, the right shall be deemed to have accrued on and not
before the date of acknowledgment or the last payment.
27(1) Every such acknowledgment referred to in S. 26 LA must be made in
writing and signed by the person making it