1. CITATION OF THE CASE
Name: Tan Peng Quee v Shirley Kathreyn Yap. Feb. 22, 2012. C J Siew (S Y Chew with him) (Douglas Yee)
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
The salient facts of the plaintiffs claim, as set out in her written submission is as follows:
(a) The plaintiff went into a partnership named Eres Tu No. 2 Stable CET2") with two other partners namely a horse trainer named Malcolm and the defendant, who was Malcolm's nominee. This partnership was registered with the Malayan Racing Association ("MRA") which is the controlling body of Horse Racing in the Turf Clubs in Malaysia and Singapore;
(b) The defendant was registered as the manager of ET2 with MRA and in such capacity; she ...view middle of the document...
As such the plaintiff was still well within the time period of 6 years when the action was filed in 2010. Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edition Volume 28 paragraph 699 was relied on which states:
In actions for an account between partners the statute of limitation does not run until the partnership is determined.
(ii) Since allegations of fraud have been raised against the defendant, s.29 of the Act provides for limitation to run from when the fraud was discovered. The plaintiff contends limitation only began to run from 2009 when he knew from Malcolm of the defendant's fraud and breach of trust.
(iii) The plaintiffs claim is for the recovery of trust property and as such s.22of the Act applies wherein limitation does not apply.
3. ISSUES OF THE CASE
In this case, the plaintiff want to claim accounting from the defendant according to Paragraph 14(a) referred to in Enclosure 26 has now been amended to paragraph 15(a) which is for an accounting of all income generated by the partnership of Eres Tu No. 2 Stable and received by the defendant. However, the Plaintiffs action for an account of the monies earned under ET2 Partnership is time barred under section 6(2)of the Limitation Act, 1953 as the period for which an account is demanded and monies claimed thereunder is more than 6 years before the commencement of these proceedings.
Since the plaintiff had filed this action vide the Writ of Summons dated 25.1.2010 the defendant contends that the plaintiff's claim is time barred as s.6 (2) of the Limitation Act (the Act) provides:
"An action for an account shall not be brought in respect of any matter which arose more than 6 years before the commencement of the action."
4. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CASE
This case is relate to partnership, it is generally defined as an association of two or more persons getting together to carry out business with the aim of getting profits. Rights and duties of partners are governed by section 26 of the Partnership Act 1961:
The interests of partners in the partnership property, and their rights and duties in relation to the partnership, shall be determined, subject to any agreement, express or implied, between the partners. Moreover, partners have the duty to render accounts. Partners are bound to render true accounts and full information of all things affecting the partnership to any partner or his legal representatives.
However, as s.6 (2) of the Limitation Act (the Act) provides:"An action for an account shall not be brought in respect of any matter which arose more than 6 years before the commencement of the action."
5. THE DECISION
Findings of court
Having heard the lengthy and vigorous submissions of the parties, I find that the plaintiffs submission with respect to s.29 of the Act (wherein limitation runs only from when the fraud is discovered) to be misleading and misplaced as no particulars of fraud have been pleaded in this case.
However, I am of the view that the issue as to when limitation...