Legal Herald DECEMBER 2019

1. Latent Damage Claims After Six Years 5. Cornerstone Investors in an IPO 9. Liquidated Damages: The Taming
of Section 75 12. Managing Employee Data Under the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 17. Hardcore Cartels:
What You Don’t Know CAN Hurt You 24. A Glimpse of Transparency in the USA 31. Offences Against Precepts of the
Religion of Islam 41. Senior Associate Profiles in this issue

Latent Damage Claims After Six Years

|by Dato’ Nitin Nadkarni and Lim Chee Yong|

T he applicable limitation period varies significantly across jurisdictions.1 In Malaysia,2

© 2019. LEE HISHAMMUDDIN
ALLEN & GLEDHILL. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED the Limitation Act 1953 prescribes a starting position of six years for both contractual
and tortious claims.3 Within the construction industry, the common complaint arises out
DISCLAIMER: The views
and opinions attributable to of defects only becoming discoverable more than six years after expiry of the applicable
the authors or editors of this limitation period. Claimants would have lost their right to bring an action even before
publication are not to be imputed
to the firm, Lee Hishammuddin
being aware of having such a right. The injustice in the state of law was fairly self-evident.
Allen & Gledhill. The contents are Both courts and parliaments often find themselves in a precarious position of needing to
intended for general information
only, and should not be construed
balance the public’s interest in access to justice against commercial business need for
as legal advice or legal opinion. certainty and finality.
The firm bears no responsibility
for any loss that might occur from United Kingdom
reliance on information contained
in this publication. It is sent to you
In the UK, the six-year limitation period is prescribed in the Limitation Act 1980 (UK).
as a client of or a person with
whom Lee Hishammuddin Allen &
Gledhill has professional dealings.
The gross shortcoming of the six-year limitation period was exposed in Pirelli,4 where
Please do not reproduce, transmit cracks in a chimney constructed in 1969 were discovered in 1977. The plaintiff brought
or distribute the contents therein
a negligence claim against the engineer in 1978. The House of Lords ruled that the
in any form, or by any means,
without prior permission from the
firm. 1 These may be anything between one year and 20 years, depending on the nature of the claim. See, for
example, Belgium.
KDN PP 12853/07/2012 (030901) 2 The references to Malaysia are a reference only to Peninsular Malaysia. Sabah and Sarawak have different
limitation regimes.
3 Limitation Act 1953, s 6
4 Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners [1983] 2 AC 1 (HL). Note that the then applicable
act was the Limitation Act 1950 (UK).

Printed by Percetakan Jiwabaru Sdn. Bhd.

No. 2, Jalan P/8, Kawasan MIEL Fasa 2, Bandar Baru Bangi, 43650 Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
plaintiff’s cause of action had accrued when the chimney Limitation (Amendment) Act 2018
first suffered the physical damage of the cracks, even The Limitation (Amendment) Act 2018, passed by the
though the damage could not have been discovered at Malaysian Parliament in April 2018, introduced a new
that time. As expert evidence indicated that the crack first s 6A to the Limitation Act 1953 which came into effect on
surfaced in 1970, the plaintiff’s claim was therefore found 1 September 2019. Using almost identical wording as the
to be time-barred. Limitation Act 1980 (UK), the effect of this new s 6A is as
follows:
In recognising the injustice and inadequacy of the then
state of the law, Lord Fraser in Pirelli held that “such • The initial six years period remains unchanged.
a result appears to be unreasonable and contrary to Parties may initiate a tortious claim not involving
principle, but I think the law is now so firmly established personal injuries anytime within this time period —
that only Parliament can alter it”. Indeed, the uncertainty in
determining when a latent defect crystallises into physical (a) C bought a house from D in 2000. In 2010, C
damage led to a line of cases being decided simply on the discovered a crack which damaged the walls
burden of proof.5 badly. A building report made by a consultant
revealed that the cracks had occurred in 2002,
While the Limitation Act 1980 (UK) carves out exceptions two years after C moved into the house. C has
to the general six-year limitation period, short of actual three years from 2010 to file an action in court
fraud, shoddy or incompetent workmanship was simply against D for damages.
insufficient to invoke the exceptions. There was a need to
establish deliberateness in the covering up of such works. (b) C bought a house from D in 2000. In 2006, C
discovered a crack which damaged the walls
In response, the Latent Damage Act 1986 (UK) was badly. A building report made by a consultant
enacted by the UK Parliament. revealed that the cracks had occurred in 2002,
two years after C moved into the house. C has
Malaysia three years from 2006 to file an action in court
The courts in Malaysia were presented with the similar against D for damages.
injustice that had formed the basis of the Latent Damage
Act 1986 (UK). The Court of Appeal had first in Abdul (c) C bought a house from D in 2000. In 2005, C
Aziz6 followed Pirelli in holding that a cause of action discovered a crack which damaged the walls
accrues, regardless of whether damage is discovered. badly. A building report made by a consultant
Subsequently, however, a different panel of judges in the revealed that the cracks had occurred in 2002,
Court of Appeal in Kamariyah7 departed from Abdul Aziz, two years after C moved into the house. C has
holding that time would only start running from the date three years from 2005 to file an action in court
damage is discovered or ought to have reasonably been against D for damages.
discovered. The conflicting judgments from the Court of
* Illustrations accompanying s 6(A)(2) of the Limitation Act 1953.
Appeal resulted in much uncertainty in the state of law in
Malaysia.

5 Nicholas J Mullany, “Reform of the Law of Latent Damage” (1991) 54 MLR 349 at 350
6 AmBank (M) Bhd v Abdul Aziz bin Hassan & Ors [2010] 3 MLJ 784 (CA)
7 AmBank (M) Bhd v Kamariyah bt Hamdan & Anor [2013] 5 MLJ 448 (CA)

2 Legal Herald . DECEMBER 2 0 1 9

• For damages discovered after the initial six-year Seeking expert advice
period, a tortious claim not involving personal injuries The new s 6A(4)(iii) of the Limitation Act 1953 similarly
may be initiated anytime within three years from the attempts to address a specific category of defects which
date the damage is discovered, or ought to have are only ascertainable with the help of appropriate expert
been discovered. This is, however, subject to a 15- advice. Subject to reasonableness, it now seems that the
year long-stop limitation — positive obligation to seek expert advice has been codified
into statute.11
(a) C bought a house from D in 2000. In 2017, C
discovered a crack which damaged the walls Various criticisms arise out of this particular provision.
badly. A building report made by a consultant Beginning with the usage of the term “reasonable”, no
revealed that the cracks had occurred in 2001, attempts were made to provide guidelines as to the type
one year after C moved into the house. C of conduct that would be deemed reasonable. In some
cannot commence an action because he has instances, defects may only be ascertainable upon
already exceeded the fifteen-year limitation multiple investigations. It is uncertain if there is therefore
period. an obligation to engage subsequent experts to verify the
findings of the first expert.
* Illustrations accompanying s 6(A)(3) of the Limitation Act 1953.

The new amendments similarly do not define the term

When does time start running?
“expert”.12 It is unclear whether informal advice and/or
A reading of the newly introduced s 6A(4) of the Limitation
discussions with family members or friends who (or even
Act 1953 indicates that time starts running as soon as a
self-proclaimed experts) would suffice to start the clock.13
person has both the knowledge of the damage and the
Such uncertainties surely present a hotbed for arguments
right to bring an action. The same section clarifies that
by lawyers.
having knowledge means being aware of, among others,
the material facts associated with the damage and the
Scope of s 6A
identity of the potential defendant(s). The question of
The Hansard indicates that Parliament had only concerned
whether an action or inaction constitutes negligence is an
itself with latent damage within the construction industry
irrelevant factor.8
when debating the Bill. The illustrations accompanying
s 6A of the Limitation Act 1953 are similarly confined to
The above clarification, however, falls short of detailing
defects within the construction industry.
the full extent of knowledge required. Looking at the UK
courts, it seems that the threshold to be met is being
However, the language of s 6A of the Limitation Act 1953
aware of the basis of the complaint along with knowledge
lends itself open to the extension of its application to
that the defendant’s acts or omissions were the cause
negligence beyond the construction industry. On this note,
of the damage.9 Closer to home, Singapore’s Court
other jurisdictions14 have recognised that the extension of
of Appeal made it clear that time begins to run upon
limitation applies across a wide spectrum of industries
reasonable suspicion and not absolute certainty of the
including services by accounting firms15 and advice by
relevant facts.10
solicitors.16 The simple position seems to be that the

8 Limitation Act 1953, s 6A(5)

9 Haward and others v Fawcetts (a firm) [2006] 3 All ER 497 (HL)
10 Lian Kok Hong v Ow Wah Foong and Another [2008] SGCA 30
11 Limitation Act 1953, s 6A(4)(iii)
12 Supra n 5, at 352
13 Ibid
14 The Limitation Act 1953, s 6A is in pari passu with the Limitation Act 1980 (UK), s 14A and 14B
15 Supra n 9
16 Blakemores LDP (in administration) v Scott & Ors [2015] All ER (D) 63 (Oct)

Legal Herald . DECEMBER 2 0 1 9 3

amendments affect all forms of negligence not involving Practical steps that could be taken to safeguard the
personal injury. uncertainties and re-allocation of risk following the new
amendments are as follows:
“No reason in principle why a plaintiff who has, for
instance, suffered damage as a result of a negligently Employers/construction professionals/service providers
drawn lease should be in any worse a position than a
plaintiff whose house has defective foundations.” — • Properly understand client’s requirements and ensure
English Law Reform Committee, 198417 strict compliance with any applicable legislation. All
ambiguities are to be clarified.
Retrospective effect • Professional indemnity insurance must have sufficient
The transitional provision of the Limitation (Amendment) cover to negate risk of litigation. This must arguably
Act 2018 stipulates that the new amendments are equally be maintained beyond retirement of a professional
applicable to causes of action that have accrued prior to and/or even after the sale of a business.
the coming into force of the new amendments.18 It seems
that even actions that were previously time-barred prior to End-users/purchasers
1 September 2019, i.e. prior to the introduction of the new
amendments, may have been given a new lease of life. • Do not automatically ignore small faults and cracks.
This is a departure from the position in both the UK19 and These signs may be an indication of a bigger problem.
Singapore,20 where the extended limitation period is not • If in doubt of services and/or any works received,
applicable to actions already time-barred under the old immediately make reasonable enquiries, if necessary,
regime and prior to introduction of the extended limitation to the appropriate experts. LH-AG
period.

This immediately raises concerns in that businesses About the authors

will unexpectedly find themselves exposed to the risk of
litigation for matters and projects that were already time- Dato’ Nitin Nadkarni ([email protected]) leads
barred and/or deemed closed under the old limitation the Energy, Infrastructure & Projects, and
regime and in respect of which insurance policies may International Arbitration Practice. He is
have lapsed. empanelled with the Asian International
Arbitration Centre as an arbitrator and sits as
Practical tips the co-chairman of the Bar Council Arbitration
While there are numerous teething issues, the new and Construction Sub-committee.
amendments nonetheless signal a big step forward in
addressing the problems with the Limitation Act 1953. It Lim Chee Yong ([email protected]) is an
remains to be seen if the courts will follow in the footsteps associate with the Energy, Infrastructure
of other jurisdictions in expanding the scope of the new & Projects, and International Arbitration
amendments beyond defects within the construction Practice. He is an Incorporated Member of
industry. the Institution of Engineers, Malaysia, and
maintains a practice focused on complex
engineering and commercial disputes.

17 Cmnd 9390 (1984), para 4.22

18 Limitation (Amendment) Act 2018, s 5
19 Latent Damage Act 1986 (UK), s 4
20 Limitation Act (Singapore), s 24C

4 Legal Herald . DECEMBER 2 0 1 9