A party's application to amend pleadings must comply with court directives and demonstrate just cause; otherwise, it may be dismissed to prevent prejudice and abuse of process.

Introduction

[1] The Defendant filed an application on 11 September 2023 to amend the Statement of Defense to include a counter-claim against the Plaintiff. The application was made under O 20 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("the Rules") and O 92(4) of the Rules.

[2] Order 20 r 5 stipulates as follows:

5. Amendment of writ or pleading with leave (O 20 r 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 made after any relevant period of limitation current at the date of the issue of the writ has expired, the Court may nevertheless grant such leave in the circumstances mentioned in that paragraph if it thinks it just to do so.

(3) An amendment to correct the name of a party may be allowed under paragraph (2) notwithstanding that it is alleged that the effect of the amendment will be to substitute a new party if the Court is satisfied that the mistake sought to be corrected was a genuine mistake and was not misleading or such as to cause any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person intending to sue or, as the case may be, intended to be sued.

(4) An amendment to alter the capacity in which a party sues (whether as plaintiff or as defendant by counterclaim) may be allowed under paragraph (2) if the capacity in which, if the amendment is made, the party will sue is one in which at the date of issue of the writ or the making of the counterclaim, as the case may be, he might have sued.

(5) An amendment may be allowed under paragraph (2) notwithstanding that the effect of the amendment will be to add or substitute a new cause of action if the new cause of action arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as a cause of action in respect of which relief has already been claimed in the action by the party applying for leave to make the amendment.

[3] Order 92(4) of the Rules stipulates:

4. Inherent powers of the Court (O 92 r 4)

For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.

Brief Facts

[4] The brief facts as stated in the Statement of Claim shows that the Plaintiff had sought to buy 5 luxury cars from the Defendant through a person whom the Plaintiff contend was an agent or a representative of the Defendant. To this end the Plaintiff paid a sum of RM3 million to this person by the name of Popat Simat Khetshi. The Plaintiff however did not receive the cars as promised and therefore now claims for the refund of the RM3 million.

[5] In their Statement of Defense the Defendant denied that the person who had approached the Plaintiff was their representative or agent. The Defendant further denied receiving any amount of money from the Plaintiff for the purchase of the 5 cars.

[6] The amendment the Defendant seeks to make is to add a counterclaim against the Plaintiff and the said Popat Simat Khetshi of conspiracy to defraud the Defendant by concealing a money lending transaction between the Plaintiff and the said Popat Simat Khetshi in the guise of purchase of the 5 luxury car.

Background Of The Case

[7] From the Court records the Plaintiff's claim was filed on 14 February 2020 and registered on 17 F