The Court emphasized that amendments must not prejudice another party and should be made in good faith, as demonstrated by established legal standards.

Introduction

[1] This is the Appellant's/Plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the Bintulu Sessions Court given on 21 May 2014 which had allowed the Respondent's/Defendant's Notice of Application dated 10 Mac 2014 vide Enclosure 34 to amend its Defence and Counterclaim to add a claim for special damages with particulars ["said Amendment Application"] which claim was earlier struck out for want of particulars.

[2] In the course of Enclosure 34, the parties exchanged the following Affidavits pertaining to the said Amendment Application namely:-

[i] the Affidavit in Support of the said amendment application of Kong Ning Song affirmed on 03 March 2014 (hereafter referred to as the "Kong's 1st Affidavit");

[ii] the Affidavit In Opposition I of Wong Kee Liong affirmed on 20 March 2014 (hereafter referred to "Wong's 1st Affidavit");

[iii] the Affidavit in Reply of the said amendment application of Kong Ning Song affirmed on 02 April 2014 (hereafter referred to as the "Kong's 2nd Affidavit"); and

[iv] the Affidavit In Opposition II of Wong Kee Liong affirmed on 10 April 2014 (hereafter referred to "Wong's 2nd Affidavit").

Background

[3] The Appellant/Plaintiff claimed against the Respondent/Defendant for the followings:-

[i] the sum of RM185,538.79 outstanding as at 30 October 2012;

[ii] thereafter, continuing interest at the rate of 1.5% per month on the outstanding sum above until the date of judgment;

[iii] interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full and final settlement; and

[iv] costs.

The Respondent's/Defendant's Counterclaim And Set Off

[4] In para 7 of its Counterclaim and Set Off, the Respondent/Defendant pleaded that the sudden and abrupt suspension of the transport service is a wrongful repudiation of the rental agreement. The suspension was done with an ulterior motive to force the Respondent/Defendant to agree to an increase in the rate under the rental agreement. The suspension of service was done suddenly and abruptly so as to catch the Respondent/Defendant by surprise and was done out of malice.

[5] In para 8 of the Respondent's/Defendant's Counterclaim and Set Off, the Respondent/Defendant counterclaimed for the following alleged loss and damage namely:-

[i] loss of business due to non delivery of concrete;

[ii] claim by customers for delay in the completion of project due to late or non delivery of concrete;

[iii] loss of customers' trust on reliability and punctual delivery of concrete; and

[iv] arrange for alternative transport on urgent basis.

[6] In para 9 of the Respondent's/Defendant's Counterclaim and Set Off, the Respondent's/Defendant's counterclaimed against the Appellant/Plaintiff for the followings:-

[i] special and general damages to be assessed;

[ii] interest; and

[iii] costs.

The Appeallant's/Plaintiff's Applications For Summary Judgement And Striking Out

[7] On 08 May 2013 and 08 March 2013 respectively, the Appellant/Plaintiff filed 2 applications against the Respondent/Defendant in the Bintulu Sessions Court namely an application for summary judgment under Enclosure 11 and another application to strike out the Respondent's/Defendant's defence and counterclaim under Enclosure 10.

[8] On 16 August 2013, the Bintulu Sessions Court granted both of the Appellant's/Plaintiff's above applications. The Respondent/Defendant appealed against the decision of the Bintulu Sessions Court to the Bintulu High Court.

[9] On 13 December 2013, the Bintulu High Court allowed the Respondent's/Defendant's appeal against summary judgment and remitted the case back to the Bintulu Sessions Court for trial. As to the appeal against the striking out, the Bintulu High Court allowe