QUESTIONS:

PART A:

Bistari Sdn Bhd (‘BSB’) is a licensed credit company in Kuala Terengganu. One of its
customers is Sedap Sokmo Catering (‘SSC’) who is owned by one Arif bin Ali, a local food
caterer. Under a credit facility agreement dated 1 January 2017 (‘the Agreement’), both
parties agreed that BSB would grant a loan of RM150,000 to SSC, and the loan must be
settled in full by SSC by the end of three years from the date of the Agreement. Three years
had passed and the balance of amount which is still owing by SSC to BSB is RM90,000.
SSC failed to observe its repayment obligation as stated in the Agreement, despite of
several reminders issued by BSB.

Bistari Sdn Bhd wishes to recover the debt through legal action. Advise Bistari Sdn Bhd on
the cause of action, limitation period and the court which has jurisdiction to hear the claim.

PART B:

In order to assist Bistari Sdn Bhd to understand the legal process of a civil litigation in court
from its pre-filing, filing of the claim until the case is ready to be called for the first mention in
court, draft a FLOWCHART comprising the following points:
 The cause of action
 The limitation period
 The defendants
 The court jurisdiction
 The appropriate originating process
 Other required court documents, if any
 The service of legal process
 The proof of service
 Any other relevant process.
 PART A GOOD JOB!
ISSUE LAW
Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit
Siang: Lord President, Tun Salleh
Abas observed that "cause of action” is
a statement of facts alleging that a
plaintiff's right, either by law or by
statue, has, in some way or another,
1) Whether there is a
been adversely affected or prejudiced
cause of action
by the act of defendant in an action.
founded in the
Cause of action needs to be identified
agreement between
and justified in the statement of claim.
Bistari Sdn Bhd and
Sedap Sokmo
Sio Koon Lin v SB Mehra [1981] 1
Catering (SSC)?
MLJ 225: the plaintiff commenced an
action for recovery of arrears for the
payment of the sum of $85,000 with
interest. The court held that there was
no a cause of action existed in the
claim since the agreement in fact is not
yet due at the time of the writ issued.
APPLICATION ANSWER CONCLUSION
In applying to this matter, based
on the case of Government of
Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang, we
can assume that the action of To conclude, BSB was
As regards to the facts
breach of agreement caused by said to have succeed in
given, there is cause of
SSC has affected the rights of proving the cause of
action arise in order for
BSB. Therefore, cause of action action arise in this
BSB to take legal action
needs to be identified and justified problem which is breach
against SSC which is,
in the statement of claim by BSB of agreement made by
the failure of SSC to
before taking legal action. SSC.
settle the full amount of
the loan within the period
Based on the case of Sio Koon In order for his case to
stated in the agreement;
Lin v SB Mehra, a cause of be heard, BSB must
three years from the date
action must exist in the claim. If bring it within the
of agreement.
BSB fail to justify cause of action, limitation period provided
the claim will be set aside. which is 6 years starting
after the cause of action
Sedap Sokmo Catering (‘SSC’) occurred.
made a loan of RM 150,000 with
 Needless to say the claim was thrown
out. Therefore, respondent's right to
any installment did not arise until the
date of the payments take place. Thus,
cause of action is necessary as we look
into the case. Needless to say the claim
was thrown out
Bistari Sdn Bhd (‘BSB’) on 1st
January 2017 and agreed to pay
the amount by the end of three
years from the date of agreement.
It was said that SSC failed to
comply with the term in the
agreement which is to pay the
respective amount within the time
given. They still owe to BSB for
RM 90,000. For the cause of
action to occur, there must have
been breach of the contractual
duty.
The fact that SSC failed to comply
with the term in the agreement is
enough to be a necessary proof
for BSB to claim their right in
order to recover the debt in legal
action.
By fulfilling all the
requirements, BSB can
proceed to take legal
action to recover his debt
from SSC.
Therefore, BSB is
entitled to take legal
action by bringing the
case to Magistrate Court
in Kuala Terengganu,
since the court has
jurisdiction to hear the
case.
 Section 6(1)(a) of Limitation Act
1953: Save as hereinafter provided the
actions founded on a contract or on tort
shall not be brought after the expiration
of six years from the date on which the
cause of action accrued.
2) Whether there is a Board of Trade v Cayzer, Irvine &
limitation period for Co.: the judge describes the cause of
Bistari Sdn Bhd (BSB) action as that which makes action
to enforce his claim in possible. What makes possible an
court? action founded on a contract is its
breach. In other words, a cause of
action founded on a contract accrues
on its breach. In the case of actions
founded on contract, therefore, time
runs from breach. In the case of actions
founded on any other right, time runs
from the date on which right is infringed
or there is a threat of infringement.
Based on Section 6(1) (a), in the
case of contract, the action must
be brought within the limitation
period of 6 years from the date on
which the breach of agreement
occurred.
Applying to the case of Board of
Trade v Cayzer, Irvine & Co. an
action founded on contract
accrues on its breach, therefore,
time runs from the date of breach
of the agreement which is on 1
January 2020. So, if Bistari Sdn
Bhd wishes to recover the debt
through legal action, they must
bring the action before the
expiration of six years from the
date which the cause of action
accrued. If that date has expired,
There is a limitation
period for BSB to file the
claim in court which is
the claim must be
brought before the
expiration of six years
from the date on which
the cause of action
accrued.
Bistari Sdn Bhd must
bring the claim against
Sedap Sokmo Catering
within 6 years after they
breach the contract. The
date of cause action
accrued is on 1 January
2020, so, BSB must
bring the action from this
date up to 1 January
2026. If BSB proceed to

Section 90 of Subordinate Court Act
1948: Subject to the limitations
contained in this Act, a First Class
Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to try
all actions and suits of a civil nature
3) Which court has where the amount in dispute or value of
jurisdiction to hear the the subject matter does not exceed one
claim brought by hundred thousand ringgit.
Bistari Sdn Bhd
(BSB)? Section 76 (2) of SCA1948: Subject to
this Act or any other written law, a
Magistrates’
Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and
determine any civil or
criminal cause or matter arising within
the local limits of jurisdiction
BSB cannot file an action towards
SSC even SSC doesn’t settle the
full loan.
Based on Section 90 of
SCA1948, BSB must bring the
case to Magistrate Court since
First Class Magistrate Court has
jurisdiction to hear the all suits if
the value of subject matter does
not beyond RM 100,000. The
amount of debt that BSB wishes
to recover from legal action is RM
90,000. Hence, this amount in
dispute does not exceed RM
100,000.
Based on Section 76(2),
Magistrates’ Court has jurisdiction
to hear civil suit within the local
take legal action after
expiration date, the court
may turn down the case.
The amount in dispute
that BSB wishes to
recover is
RM 90,000. This is the
value of subject matter of
this case.
Since the amount of
subject matter does not
exceed RM 100,000,
therefore, BSB has right
to bring his action to First
Class Magistrate Court
since this matter falls
within its jurisdiction.
BSB shall bring his
assigned to it under this section, or, if
no such local limits have been
assigned, arising in any part of
Peninsular Malaysia.
limits of jurisdiction assigned to it. action to Magistrate
Applying to this case, Magistrate Court in Kuala
Court of Kuala Terengganu shall Terengganu.
have jurisdiction to hear the claim
commenced by BSB against
SSC, since both company
situated in Kuala Terengganu.
 PARTIES

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:
Bistari Sdn Bhd Sedap Sokmo
(BSB) Catering
(SSC)

BSB commencing a civil

BSB must establish the
action by way of originating
cause of action in his
summons (OS)
case. (Breach of
contract) () Application +
Affidavit

Plaintiff need to bring the case to OS shall be served personally on

court within the limitation period of SSC to their last known address -
6 years after breach of agreement first attempt at service must be made
not later than one month from the
date of issue of OS.

WRIT OR OS: WHICH ONE IS MORE APPROPRIATE?

Bring the case to Magistrate Court

in Kuala Terengganu because it
has jurisdiction over this matter
BSB extract a sealed copy
of the same and serve your
Court papers to the
Defendant within 6 months.
The OS will be fully served when
the document has been endorsed
by SSC’s solicitor on behalf of
the defendant when accepting
the service.