The court affirmed that amendments to pleadings and addition of defendants are permissible when made in good faith and necessary for complete adjudication.

JUDGMENT

Alice Loke Yee Ching JC:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff applies, by way of encl 31 to include a 6th Defendant and to amend the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed by him on 12 January 2021. The Plaintiff's application is made pursuant to O 15 r 6(2) and O 20 r 5(1) of the Rules of 2012 .

Background Facts

[2] The present suit is premised on the following facts. The Plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya. The Plaintiff was employed by 3rd Defendant in December 2018. He is suing the Defendants for having induced and misled him into setting up a legal firm in his name in Shah Alam where he was to be the sole proprietor. He was told that should he fail to do so, his employment would be terminated. The Plaintiff's firm, Tetuan Amin Chambers, was set up on 20 November 2019.

[3] Notwithstanding the establishment of Tetuan Amin Chambers, the Plaintiff continued to be paid by the 3rd Defendant from November 2019 until September 2020. His EPF contributions were also continued by the 3rd Defendant. The 3rd Defendant continued to give him instructions as if he was still in the employment of the 3rd Defendant.

[4] The Plaintiff's case is that the instruction to set up his firm was a ruse on the part of the 1st and 2nd Defendants to transfer some of its clients and certain litigation files to the Plaintiff's firm whilst continuing to maintain control over the files. This was done to avoid jeopardising the 3rd Defendant's reputation with some 14 banking institutions currently represented by the 3rd Defendant, as some of its clients were moneylenders. The Plaintiff was promised commission for the litigation and conveyancing files handled by his firm but was the promise was not honoured.

[5] Apart from the foregoing allegations, the Plaintiff also claimed that there was unlawful interference in the management of his firm and misuse of its firm name by the Defendants on the documents of the latter which amounts to fraud and conspiracy to injure the Plaintiff. Specific instances were cited in his Statement of Claim. The reliefs sought in his suit against the Defendants are in the nature of declarations, injunctions, and orders for accounts and damages.

The Application

[6] Pursuant to the application filed, the Plaintiff wishes to include one Theng Bok, a partner of the 3rd Defendant as an additional Defendant. In addition, the Plaintiff also wishes to amend the Statement of Claim to include specific allegations in respect of the proposed 6th Defendant. The proposed amendments also include reliefs the Plaintiff seeks against the 6th Defendant.

The Defendant's Grounds Of Objection

[7] The Plaintiff's application is strenuously opposed by the counsel for the Defendants. The grounds of objection are firstly, the Plaintiff has failed to fulfil the prerequisites of O 15 r 4 and r 6(2) for an order to be granted. Secondly, the application is a clear abuse of the process of the Court and made to satisfy the personal vendetta of the Plaintiff. Thirdly, the new facts alleged were only raised in the Affidavit in Reply of the Plaintiff when they could have been raised in the Affidavit in Support of the application.

Analysis And Decision Of This Court

[8] The Defendants objection was primarily on the proposed adding of Theng Bok, as the 6th Defendant. However, I am of the view that the application before me should be dealt with by first considering the issue of the proposed amendments.

[9] The relevant provision governing the amendment of pleadings is as follows,

Amendment of writ or pleading with leave (O 20, r 5)

5. (1) Subject to O 15, rr 6, 6A, 7 and 8 and the following provisions of this rule, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow the plaintiff to amend his writ, or any party to amend his pleading, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such a manner, if any, as it may direct.

(2) Where an application to the Court for leave to make the amendment mentioned in paragraph (3), (4) or (5) is ma