Amendments to pleadings should be granted unless proven otherwise, considering delay, bona fides, and potential prejudice to the opposing party.

Introduction

[1] The rules of court confer wide discretionary powers on the Courts to permit applications by litigants to amend their writs and pleadings. The provisions governing this aspect of practice and procedure are couched in liberal terms Be that as it may, it is commonplace that in exercising these discretionary powers, the Courts are bound by established principles and are predisposed to the factual matrix of the case before them.

[2] The present application concerns an application by the Plaintiff to amend its statement of claim. This necessitates a consideration by this court of the applicable principles and the grounds and facts in support of and against the application.

The Overriding Issue

[3] The primary issue for determination in this present matter is whether the application by the Plaintiff in encl 72 to amend its statement of claim ought to be allowed.

[4] Arising from the above are the followings subsidiary issues, namely;

(a) Whether there has been a delay on the part of the Plaintiff in making this application;

(b) Whether the amendment is bona fide;

(c) Whether the amendment will change the character of the pleaded case; and

(d) Whether this amendment will prejudice the Defendant and cannot be compensated by costs.

The Nature Of Amendments Sought And The Justifications In Support Of The Application

[5] It is the Plaintiff's case that the proposed amendments in the Proposed Amended Statement of Claim are merely "grammatical amendments" and of ensuring "completeness and further accuracy in the pleaded facts".

[6] The amendments sought are also justified on the ground of "recent developments that have emerged" after the filing of the suit.

[7] The Plaintiff contends that since the amendments are not substantial in nature, the Defendant would not suffer any prejudice if leave to amend the Statement of Claim is granted. In any event, the Defendant can be compensated with costs.

[8] It should be noted that the Statement of Claim was dated 29 March 2021. This application in encl 72 to amend the Statement of Claim was only filed on 19 June 2023.

[9] The Plaintiff seeks to justify the delay in the filing of its application to amend the Statement of Claim on the basis that by an Order dated 13 June 2022, this court had granted the Plaintiff leave to file the Plaintiff's Further Affidavit in respect of the Defendant's application marked as encl 10 to strike out the Plaintiff's claim. According to the Plaintiff, that Further Affidavit addressed the facts that form the basis of the recent developments that give rise to the proposed amendments in paras 17A to 17G and 30A to 30C of the Proposed Amended Statement of Claim.

[10] The Plaintiff went on to explain that these proposed amendments in paras 17A to 17G and 30A to 30C of the Proposed Amended Statement of Claim seek to align the pleadings with the said evidence in the Plaintiff's Further Affidavit and to bring the Statement of Claim up to date with the related subsequent developments following the disposal of encl 10.

[11] The new paragraphs that the Plaintiff seek to include in its Proposed Amended Statement of Claim are as follows:

17A. By letter dated 14 June 2021, SMEO informed Austin Powder Malaysia Sdn Bhd ("Austin Powder Malaysia") (formerly known as Tenaga Kimia Sdn Bhd, in which the Plaintiff is the majority shareholder), amongst others, that the termination of the Lease Agreement "...shall remain and continue to be intact b