limitation Archives - RONALD JJ WONG

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.

Significance: 5-judge coram of the Singapore Court of Appeal in the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) held that:

unjust enrichment claims are not subject to limitation (based on the current wording of the Limitation Act (“LA”));
restitution for wrongs are also not subject to limitation unless the wrong is based on a civil wrong which is addressed in the LA;
for the s 29 LA postponement of limitation period for fraud or mistake, limitation period runs when circumstances, objectively viewed, give rise to a desire to investigate;
equitable doctrine of laches does not apply to common law claims;
a claimant could possibly claim in unjust enrichment for value transferred through intermediaries to the defendant if the substance of the arrangement resulted in a transfer of value from the claimant to the defendant. Value would be provided pursuant to a wider scheme but for which the transferor would not have had the value to transfer. A causal link must be established between (i) resources expended by the claimant and (ii) resources eventually transferred to the defendant. Resources transferred would be regarded as the assets of the claimants and not that of the intermediaries;
lack of consent could, in principle, be an unjust factor;
however, legally valid transfers of the claimant’s value without his consent or the retention by the defendant of the claimant’s value which the defendant is legally entitled to cannot be unjust;
lack of consent would generally not be available as an unjust factor in cases where an alternative established cause of action is already available to the claimant.
The Court also expressed a provisional view that an unjust enrichment (and not only a contractual) claim may be unenforceable if it offended the policy of international comity, if to permit it would otherwise result in the contravention of the laws of a foreign country. This is insofar as permitting the claim would stultify the policy of international comity. Also, this should extend to defences to claims in unjust enrichment, ie, the fundamental domestic public policy of international comity should bar defences in addition to claims in unjust enrichment, subject to the principle of stultification.

https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGCAI_1

Tag: limitation

Case: Kuvera Properties v Far East Opus Pte Ltd [2026] SGCA 34 – Court of Appeal decides on law of limitation for equitable rescission and damages under Misrepresentation Act

Case: Esben Finance Ltd and others v Wong Hou-Lianq Neil [2022] SGCA(I) 1 – limitation for unjust enrichment and fraud; lack of consent in unjust enrichment;