Back
2014 MarsdenLR 2653
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
K RAJASHEKAR KANAPATHY & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PALM COURT CONDOMINIUM-JMB & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: S21-261-2009]
Timely amendment of pleadings is critical; delays without proper explanation can lead to dismissal of applications. Courts prioritize justice and the prevention of prejudice over mere technicalities in amendments.
Headnote:(A) Order 20 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court - Amendment of pleadings - Application to amend statement of claim to include misrepresentation and declaration of tenancy agreements as void - Amendments sought were delayed by four years without sufficient explanation and would change the character of the claim from damages to rescission - Court emphasized the importance of pleadings and the need for timely actions in litigation - Application dismissed. (Paras 11-36)
(B) Court’s discretion to permit amendments - Courts should allow amendments to prevent injustice, but must consider the delay and whether it would cause prejudice to the other party. (Paras 20-27)
(C) The concept of bona fide applications - Applications must be made in good faith; if inordinate delay is present, a clear explanation is required. (Paras 28-30)
(D) Nature of proposed amendments - Proposed amendments to rescind agreements would alter the character of the pleadings and not permissible at this stage. (Paras 31-35)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. understanding the factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
[1] The 1st to the 8th plaintiffs' applied to amend their statement of claim dated 17 September 2009 pertaining to assertions made against the 15th defendant. The application is supported by the affidavit of Sugumaran a/l Nagapen affirmed on 25 October 2013. The 15th defendant opposed the application on procedural and substantive grounds.
The Facts
[2] The factual matrix relevant to this application is as follows. The late Wong Tuck Onn ("the deceased") was the owner of three commercial lots in Palm Court Condominium in Brickfields , Kuala Lumpur. He partitioned these lots and rented them out to the plaintiffs. The tenancy agreements between the deceased and the plaintiffs' were entered into at different times between 1998 and 2002. The agreements expired in 2004 and thereafter the plaintiffs became monthly tenants.
[3] The plaintiffs' continued to carry on business in the Condominium without any disturbances until the establishment of the Joint Management Body ("JMB") for Palm Court Condominium on 26 January 2008.
[4] When the JMB took charge of the management of the condominium from the developer, it introduced numerous changes. In April 2008, the main entrance to the Condominium that was opposite Jalan Sultan Abdul Samad was closed, and was moved to the gate opposite Jalan Berhala. This move adversely affected the business of the plaintiffs' as their customers no longer had easy access to their shops. By letter dated 10 June 2008, of the Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur ("DBKL") informed the deceased that the partitions had been put up illegally and required him to either submit the requisite plans for approval or to demolish them.
[5] The deceased passed away on 16 March 2009, and on 26 August 2009, the plaintiffs were served with notices from DBKL under section 79 of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 requiring them to demolish the partitions.
[6] On 17 September 2009, the plaintiffs instituted this action against the JMB and its 11 committee members, DBKL, the developer of the Condominium and the estate of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as "the 15th defendant") for damages and loss suffered as a result of the closure of the main entrance along Jalan Sultan Abdul Samad by JMB. On the same day, an application was made by the plaintiffs for a mandatory injunction , inter-alia, to restrain DBKL and JMB from demolishing the partitions put up by the deceased. The application was not served on the developer and the 15th defendant. On 16 June 2010, the Court dismissed the injunction application, and also the plaintiffs' claim against DBKL, JMB and its committee members. With the dismissal of the claim against these defendants, only the plaintiffs' claim against the developer and the 15th defendant remained.
