Amendments to pleadings can be made at any stage before trial if they clarify existing issues and do not change the cause of action.

JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad JC:

[1] This an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court dated 5 June 2020 allowing the Respondent's application to amend the Respondent's amended statement of claim dated 26 November 2018. I dismissed the appeal on 9 October 2020. This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision. At the Sessions Court, the Respondent was the Plaintiff and the Appellant was the Defendant.

Salient Facts

[2] The Respondent commenced the claim against the Appellant by filing a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on 12 October 2018. The Writ and Statement of Claim was subsequently amended on 26 November 2018. The claim was in respect of the recovery of an amount of RM476,456.51 ("the Amount Due") as of 2 October 2018 from the Appellant arising from the alleged breach of a Property Purchase and Property Sale Agreement dated 16 December 2014 between the Appellant and Telekom Malaysia Berhad ("TMB") in respect of a Housing Facility under the Al-Bai Bithaman Ajil Principle. The Respondent contended that it is an appointed agent for TMB via a Servicer Agreement dated 27 May 2009 and was appointed by TMB to recover the Amount Due.

[3] On 14 February 2020 the Respondent filed an application ("the Amendment Application") to amend para 3 of its amended statement of claim dated 26 November 2018 to plead certain facts which confirmed that the Appellant had been aware that the Respondent had been the collection agent for TMB from the time the Appellant submitted the application form for a staff loan described as "Borang Permohonan Pinjaman Kakitangan" ("the Application Form") which culminated into the Housing Facility provided by the Respondent to the Appellant.

[4] The proposed amended para 3 is reproduced below:

"3. Melalui satu Borang Permohonan Pinjaman Kakitangan Telekom Malaysia Berhad bertarikh 16 June 2014, Defendan sebagai seorang kakitangan Telekom Malaysia Berhad pada masa yang material telah memohon RM500,000.00 dari Telekom Malaysia Berhad. Defendan sedia maklum pada masa permohonan dibuat bahawa pihak Telekom telah menyerahkan hak pengurusan pembiayaan perumahan kakitangan Telekom kepada pihak Ambank. Defendan iuga telah memberi kebenaran kepada Ambank untuk membuat segala semakan pengesahan latar belakang kredit dan memaklumkan keputusan semakan pengesahan tersebut kepada Telekom. Pada semua masa yang material, Defendan tahu Ambank mempunyai hubungan dengan Defendan. Melalui suatu Surat Tawaran yang bertarikh 3 July 2014 (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Surat Tawaran tersebut"), atas permintaan Defendan, Plaintif telah menawarkan dan Defendan telah bersetuju menerima suatu Kemudahan Pembiayaan Perumahan di bawah Konsep Syariah Al Bai Bithaman Ajil (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai "Kemudahan Tersebut")."

[5] The Amendment Application was heard by the learned Sessions Court Judge and was dismissed on 5 June 2020, hence this appeal.

Preliminary Objection

[6] The Appellant raised a preliminary objection to the Respondent's Amendment Application on the ground that the application was defective in that the Respondent wrongly moved the Court under O 20 r 1 Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012") which sets out the procedure for the amendment of writ without leave when the application should have been made under O 20 r 5 ROC 2012 (amendment of writ or pleading with leave).

[7] The Appellant argued that this was not merely a technical error that can be cured in the interest of justice under O 1A ROC 2012 as it is mandatory for the proper application to be advanced in the Respondent's Amendment Application.

[8] I regard the erroneous reference to O 20 r 1 of the ROC 2012 to be merely a technical non-compliance with these rules. Despite making a reference to the incorrect rule, the Respondent was indeed seeking leave of the Court. The Appellant opposed the application by raising the usual issues when opposing an application to amend pleadings under O 20 r 5 ROC 2012. This demonstrates that all parties concerned were aware under whi