Setting a limit
22/03/2005 The Star By Bhag Singh

It is not uncommon to hear about cases filed in court taking several years before a decision is handed down. Even then a matter may be prolonged as a result of an appeal filed by a party that is dissatisfied.

However, though cases in court may on occasion take a long time to come to a conclusion, the period within which a party or a person may initiate a claim is not completely without limitation.

In the case of Peninsular Malaysia, the law is contained in the Limitation Act 1953. Referred to also as Act 254, it provides for the limitation of actions and arbitration.

Section 6 of the Act would be relevant to most if not all ordinary business and commercial transactions. It provides that in the case of an action founded on contract or tort no action can be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Thus transactions involving the granting of loans and the provision and supply of goods and services would clearly come within the scope of this section.

The question that arises is: what constitutes the accrual of a cause of action in a particular situation? In come cases it may not be so easy to say whether and when the limitation period has began or has expired.

An example is where money is lent after which a length of time passes before its repayment is requested or demanded.

When repayment is requested it often happens that it may already be seven or eight years since the money was lent and an action is only filed sometime after the demand for repayment is not met. In such a case, a question that arises is whether time began to run when the money was lent or only after the demand was made?

On the other hand, when money is lent on the basis that is repayable at a specified date after it is lent then it would be the case that the limitation period would begin to run from the time fixed for repayment.

However, when a friend or relative lends money, a time to repay may neither