JUDGMENT
[1] The appellants, husband and wife, sued their lawyers for professional negligence and negligent misstatement relating to the preparation of a Sales and Purchase Agreement in 2004. The suit was filed in 2015. The claim was allowed by the High Court after a full trial. The decision was, however, set aside on appeal because the claim was held to be time-barred under the Limitation Act of 1953 [Act 254]. The High Court did not deal with this issue, although it was pleaded and submitted on by the parties.
[2] Leave was granted on the following two questions of law to be determined by this Court; both questions concern the issue of limitation:
First Question
In a tortious claim arising from a negligently prepared agreement, does the time-period for limitation begin to run from the date of the impugned agreement; or does time begin to run from the date of an infringement or threat of infringement of the claimant's right caused by the impugned agreement?
Second Question
In respect of when the limitation period starts to run in a claim of negligence, is the Court of Appeal's decision in AmBank (M) Bhd v. Abdul Aziz Hassan & Ors [2009] 4 MLRA 458 still good law in light of the recent Court of Appeal decisions of Sabarudin Othman & Anor v. Malayan Banking Berhad And Other Appeals [2018] 4 MLRA 384 and Ambank (M) Bhd v. Kamariyah Hamdan & Anor [2011] 2 MLRA 623?
[3] After a full hearing, we found merits in the appellants' arguments and unanimously allowed the appeal. We set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and restored the decision of the High Court.
The Sales And Purchase Agreement (SPA)
[4] The appellants purchased landed property from a housing developer, Reka Mesra Sdn Bhd. They engaged RFC Consultancy Sdn Bhd to build a threestorey semi'detached house on that property. The respondents prepared both the Sales and Purchase Agreement [SPA] and construction agreement for the appellants [the 1st respondent is a partner in the 2nd respondent firm of solicitors]. Both agreements are dated 22 April 2004. The respondents left Item 3 of the First Schedule to the SPA for details on "Name of Bank/Financier", blank. This signified that the property was not encumbered or charged.