The law of limitation can be a maze.
Somehow this is the first time certain important issues on the interpretation of the Limitation Act (LA) has gone before the apex court in Singapore and perhaps anywhere else in the common law world.
In Kuvera Properties v Far East Opus Pte Ltd [2026] SGCA 34, the claimant claims to have been misrepresented to in 2013 but only discovered the misreps in Nov 2022, and filed a suit in May 2024 for rescission and damages under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (MA). The court below struck out the claim as being time barred.
The 5-person CA bench made important legal holdings.
– Damages claim under s 2(1) MA is subject to 6-year limitation, as it’s founded on tort, akin to tort of deceit albeit without dishonesty, or alternatively a claim under written law.
– It interacts with s 24A (3 years limitation from knowledge and right to bring action) and s 29 LA (postponement of limitation period to when claimant did or could with reasonable diligence discover a mistake) such that a claimant can elect the more favourable outcome if both apply. This is because misrep is a species of mistake.
– Equitable rescission for innocent misrep is not subject to any limitation under the LA.
– This is because it is a claim within equity’s exclusive jurisdiction and not within equity’s concurrent jurisdiction with the common law, whereas s 6(7) LA only applies to the latter.
– The CA considered a historical overview of the development of the law on this and concluded that s 6(7) codifies the historical practice of the equity courts applying limitation to claims within equity’s concurrent jurisdiction. The rationale was to prevent a claimant from reframing a common law cause of action as an equitable one to evade limitation that applies to the common law cause of action.
– Claims for breach of fiduciary duty are subject to limitation within s 22(2) by analogy to claims for breach of trust.
– Dishonest assistance and knowing receipt claims are not subject to limitation under LA but are governed by laches.
The CA allowed the appeal on the facts. The claim under s 2(1) was not time barred as the claimant did not and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the misrep as of May 2018. The equitable rescission claim is not subject to any limitation under LA but laches. Laches however has not been advanced.