Affidavits containing procedural irregularities may be regularised if they do not undermine the affidavit's substance, emphasizing that courts should prioritize substantive justice over technical compliance.

[1] Like a scene lifted from Steven Spielberg's Minority Report, where fate is sealed by precogs' premonitory glimpses of a future not yet lived, this case turns on an affidavit that appears to defy time itself. The plaintiff now seeks leave under O 41 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("the Rules") to regularise this temporal anomaly by reaffirming the affidavit. The impugned paragraph refers to an event that took place three days after the affidavit was affirmed, as if the deponent had peered into the future. The defendant objects strenuously, insisting the defect is no mere slip but a fatal flaw that strikes at the heart of admissibility. After careful scrutiny of the submissions and authorities, this Court grants the plaintiff's application, for the reasons that follow.

Background Facts

[2] The material facts are largely undisputed. The plaintiff, a former insurance agent of the defendant, claims wrongful termination and seeks damages exceeding RM322 billion. The defendant terminated her contract alleging participation in a fraudulent scheme involving "premium financing", namely the practice of paying insurance premiums on behalf of policyholders, often using third party funds, to generate policies that may later lapse, allowing agents to earn commissions without any genuine intention of maintaining the coverage. The plaintiff, however, denies these allegations and asserts that her termination was actuated by ulterior motives.

[3] The procedural history unfolds as follows:

(a) On 3 July 2024, the plaintiff initiated the action by filing the Writ and Statement of Claim (Enclosures 1 and 2);

(b) The defendant responded on 9 August 2024 with their Defence and Counterclaim (Enclosure 5);

(c) On 22 August 2024, the plaintiff filed an Amended Writ and Statement of Claim pursuant to O 20 rr 1 and 3 of the Rules (Enclosures 8 and 9). The amendments were confined to correcting the name of the first plaintiff and updating the plaintiff's solicitor's particulars. However, the Registrar rejected these documents on 23 August 2024 due to formatting non-compliance;

(d) On 23 August 2024, the plaintiff filed their Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim (Enclosure 11);

(e) On 26 August 2024, the plaintiff refiled the Amended Writ and Statement of Claim under the same provisions (Enclosures 12 and 13);

(f) Pleadings were deemed closed on 6 September 2024;

(g) On 6 September 2024 at 11:58 PM, the defendant filed an Amended Defence and Counterclaim (Enclosure 14) pursuant to O 20 r 3(2)(b). The amendments were substantial, replacing the original 37 paragraphs in encl 5 with a newly drafted 56-paragraph pleading. This filing was rejected by the Registrar on 9 September 2024 due to formatting defects;

(h) On 18 September 2024, the defendant refiled the amended pleading, now marked as encl 17;

(i) Prior to that, on 15 September 2024, the plaintiff had affirmed an Affidavit in Support intended to be used in an application to disallow and/or strike out the defendant's Amended Defence and Counterclaim in encl 14;

(j) The plaintiff subsequently discovered the existence of encl 17 during a routine check of the CMS system. At the material time, encl 17 had not been served on the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff added new averments concerning encl 17 into the affidavit that had already been affirmed on 15 September 2024;

(k) On 20 September 2024, the plaintiff filed an application under O 20 r 4 (Enclosure 18) to disallow or strike out the defendant's Amended Defence and Counterclaim (Enclosures 14 and/or 17);

(l) The application in encl 18 is supported by t