Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3492
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
ORIENTAL STEEL PIPE SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
UNITED SECURITY SERVICES SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BA-12ANCvC-21-04/2024]
The decision to allow amendments to pleadings in civil cases is non-appealable as it does not dispose of the final rights of the parties.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 28 - Appealability of subordinate court decisions - The appeal concerns the Sessions Court's decision to allow the Respondent/Defendant to amend its Defence, raising the question of whether such decisions are appealable. (Paras 1-3, 7-10)
(B) Legal principles on amendments - Established principles govern amendments to pleadings, which are consistently applied by courts. (Paras 6, 25)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant/Plaintiff appealed against the Sessions Court's decision allowing the Respondent/Defendant to amend its Defence, questioning the appealability of such decisions. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
The appeal is not appealable under s 28(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, as it does not dispose of the final rights of the parties. (Paras 22-24)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Sessions Court's decision to allow the amendment is appealable and whether the discretion exercised was proper. (Paras 2-3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision to allow amendments does not constitute a final decision and is therefore non-appealable, aligning with the Federal Court's ruling in a related case. (Paras 22-24)
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This appeal by the Appellant/Plaintiff arises from the Sessions Court 's decision to allow the Respondent/Defendant's application to amend its Defence. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present appeal. Beyond the substantive issue of whether the Sessions Court was correct in allowing the Respondent/Defendant's application to amend its Defence, this appeal also raises a critical preliminary procedural question: whether a subordinate Court 's decision to allow or disallow an application to amend pleadings, as in this case, is appealable.
The Twin Issues
[2] The primary issue for consideration in this appeal is the question of whether the decision by the Sessions Court which allowed the Respondent/Defendant to amend its Defence is appealable to this Court .
[3] If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, this Court is required to deliberate on the issue of whether the Sessions Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the said application by the Respondent/Defendant.
The Law And Principles In Relation To The First Issue
[4] The law governing civil appeals from the subordinate courts to the High Court is stated in s 28 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 . The relevant section provides as follows:
Civil appeals from subordinate courts
28. (1) No appeal shall lie to the High Court in any of the following cases:
(a) subject to any other written law, from a decision of a subordinate Court in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter is ten thousand ringgit or less except on a question of law;
(b) where a subordinate Court dismissed any application for a summary judgment;
(c) where a subordinate Court dismissed any application to strike out any writ or pleading; and
(d) where a subordinate Court allowed any application to set aside a judgment in default.
(2) An appeal shall lie from any decision of a subordinate Court in any proceedings relating to maintenance of wives or children, irrespective of the amount involved.
[5] In the corresponding provision of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 that relates to civil appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, s 68 reads as follows:
Non-appealable matters
68. (1) No appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal in any of the following cases:
(a) when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the claim (exclusive of interest) is less than two hundred and fifty thousand ringgit, except with the leave of the Court of Appeal;
(b) where the judgment or order is made by consent of parties;
(c) where the judgment or order relates to costs only which by law are left to the discretion of the Court , except with the leave of the Court of Appeal;
(d) where, by any written law for the time being in force, the judgment or order of the High Court , is expressly declared to be final;
(e) where a High Court dismissed any application for a summary judgment;
(f) where a High Court dismissed any application to strike out any writ or pleading; and
(g) where a High Court allowed any application to set aside a judgment in default.
(2) (Deleted by Act A886).
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decision of a Judge in Chambers in a summary way on an interpleader summons, where the facts are not in dispute, except by leave of the Court of Appeal, but an appeal shall lie from a judgment given in Court on the trial of an interpleader issue.
The Law And Principles In Relation To The Second Issue
[6] The legal principles governing amendments to pleadings are well- established and firmly embedded in procedural law, rendering any detailed restatement unnecessary. These principles have been repeatedly articulated and consistently applied by the courts, leaving little room for doubt or the need for detailed restatement. This Court will proceed on the basis of these established doctrines to assess the matter at hand when determining the seco
