SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 1026

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
BUKIT KIARA PROPERTIES SERVICES SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
GUNALAN & ASSOCIATES – Respondent
[Guaman NO: WA-22NCvC-142-03/2020]



Petitioner Advocates:Hoi Jack S'ng,Tiffany Low Jia Qi ,Respondent Advocate: Manoharan Malayalam,Adiishyiah Tangarajoo

Amendment applications must be filed timely and in good faith; unjustified delays can lead to dismissal of such applications.

Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 20 r 5 - Amendment of pleadings - Plaintiff sought to amend the writ and statement of claim to reflect the correct name of the Defendant, following a preliminary objection raised regarding the Defendant's existence - The Court found that the amendments were merely procedural and did not justify the delay and tactical maneuver behind the application. (Paras [1]-[36])

(B) Amendment Application - The Court highlighted that while amendments can be made at any stage, they must not mislead or cause prejudice, and must be made in good faith, without any delay. (Paras [6], [11], [27])

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff's application arose due to a preliminary objection by the Defendant asserting that they were no longer existent under the name listed in the original writ, prompting the Plaintiff to request an amendment to reflect the correct name of the Defendant's firm. (Paras [4]-[5])

Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the proposed amendments did not sufficiently address the prejudice caused to the Defendant and were deemed tacitly tactical, dismissing the application due to lack of cogent justification for the delay. (Paras [33]-[36])

Issues: The key issues addressed included whether there was an unjustified delay in filing amendments and whether the amendments changed the character of the Plaintiff's claim in any improper way. (Paras [6]-[10])

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated that amendment applications must be bona fide and timely, and any unjustified delays may lead to dismissal, particularly if they are perceived as tactical maneuvers to delay proceedings. (Paras [27]-[36])

Result: The Plaintiff's application to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim was dismissed with costs. (Paras [37])

Table of Content
1. plaintiff seeks leave to amend claims. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background on the defendant's objection. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. defendant argues delay constitutes tactical maneuver. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 , 12)
4. plaintiff contests existence of defendant. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 13)
5. court emphasizes procedural governance. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. court evaluates substantiation of amendments. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. court scrutinizes delay explanations. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. justice overrides technical non-compliance. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
9. court's analysis leads to dismissal. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
Eddie Yeo Soon Chye JC:

[1] This is the Plaintiff's Notice of Application filed on 14 April 2025 pursuant to O 20 r 5 and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 for the following orders:

(i) That leave be granted to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim dated 2 March 2020 (Encls 1 and 2), in the manner where the proposed amendments have been underlined in red ink as shown in the Proposed Amended Writ and Proposed Amended Statement of Claim (Proposed Amendments), which are annexed to the Notice of Application filed herein;

(ii) That the costs of this application be costs in the cause; and

(iii) Such further and/or other relief as the Court deems fit.

[2] The grounds of this application are, among others, as follows:

(a) The Proposed Amendments are intended to reflect the current name and status of the Defendant and are made bona fide;

(b) The Proposed Amendments do not alter the character of the Plaintiff's action to a different and inconsistent one;

(c) At all material times, the Plaintiff is suing the Defendant as a firm. In this regard, the company searches show that there was no change in the Audit Firm Number of the Defendant and only a change in the Name of the Firm;

(d) No prejudice or injustice will be caused to the Defendant in any manner that cannot be compensated with costs.

[3] The cause papers filed in relation to Encl 129 are as follows:

(a) Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of Datuk Tong Nguen Khoong filed on 14 April 2025 (Encl 130) and Reply Affidavit of filed on 27 May 2025 (Encl 134);

(b) Defendant's Affidavit in Reply of Gunalan a/l Appalasamy filed on 9 May 2025 (Encl 132) and Affidavit in Reply of Kumaraguru a/l Manokaran filed on 9 May 2025 (Encl 133);

(c) Plaintiff's Written Submissions (Encl 135) and Bundle of Authorities (Encl 136); and

(d) Defendant's Written Submissions (Encl 137), Reply Submissions (Encl 139) and Bundle of Authorities (Encls 138 and 140).

Background

[4] The Defendant's solicitor raised a preliminary objection on the first day of trial (17 March 2025) concerning the name and existence of the Defendant, arguing that the Plaintiff could not sue a non-existent entity and even if they proceed to do so, the Plaintiff would encounter issues when the Plaintiff intends to enforce the judgment in the event the Plaintiff is successful in their claim.

[5] On the even date, the Plaintiff applied to file this Notice of Application in response to the Defendant's Preliminary Objection addressed to Court which was filed on 13 March 2025 (Encl 126) as follows:

"Tujuan kami menulis surat ini adalah untuk memaklumkan kepada pihak Mahkamah bahawa kami akan membuat satu bantahan untuk diputuskan sebelum perbicaraan disebabkan ketidakwujudan lagi Defendan yang dinamakan dalam kes ini.

Defendan yang dinamakan dalam kes ini, iaitu Gunalan & Associates yang merupakan satu milikan tunggal tidak lagi wujud dimana ianya sekarang dikenali sebagai GSK & Associates dan merupakan satu perkongsian. Perkara ini sudah lama diketahui oleh pihak Plaintif.

Untuk makluman Mahkamah, pada 12 March 2025, kami telah memaklumkan perkara ini kepada peguamcara Plaintif dimana sekiranya peguamcara Plaintif berniat untuk meminda Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan, kami mempunyai bantahan dan sekiranya Plaintif berniat untuk meminda Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan, kami akan membuat bantahan preliminary. Peguamcara telah mengambil maklum."

Issues

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top