Amendments to pleadings are allowed to correct typographical errors, ensuring justice is served without causing undue prejudice to the opposing party.

Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

This was an appeal lodged by the defendant to the judge in chambers in encl. 32 against the decision of the senior assistant registrar ("SAR") that was handed down on 28 September 1999 in allowing the plaintiff's application for leave to amend its statement of claim as seen in encl. 25. The plaintiff's application for leave to amend the statement of claim in encl. 25 merely sought to amend para. 3 of its statement of claim by substituting the code number "UDO281" with that of "UDO271" within the ambit and purport of O. 20 r. 5(1) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("RHC") which states as follows:

Subject to Order 15 rules 6, 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 manner (if any) as it may direct.

Jenkins LJ in GL Baker, Ltd v. Medway Building & Supplies, Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1216 at p. 1231 aptly said that all amendments ought to be made "for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings or of correcting any defect or error in any proceedings." Bramwell LJ in Tildesley v. Harper 10 Ch D 396, 397 succinctly said:

My practice has always been to give leave to amend unless I have been satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that, by his blunder, he had done some injury to his opponent which could not be compensated for by costs or otherwise.

Brett MR in Clarapede v. Commercial Union Association [1883] 32 WR 263 even ventured to say that:

However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be

made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs.

Then there is a principle of law which says that an amendment ought to be allowed so that "the real substantial question can be raised between the parties" (Kurtz v. Spence 36 Ch D 774; The Alert 72 LT 124). Amendments have been generously allowed by the courts over the years. The phrase "at any stage of the proceedings" that appears in O. 20 r. 5(1) of the RHC connotes a wide meaning. Amendments can therefore be made and may be allowed before, or at, or after the trial, or even after judgment or on appeal (The Duke of Buccleuch [1892] P 201, and GL Baker, Ltd v. Medway Building & Supplies, Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1216, CA).

Now, reverting back to the mainstream of the case, the defendant vehemently opposed the plaintiff's application. The relevant affidavits that were referred to in the course of the arguments were quite plain and straightforward. Enclosure 25 was supported by an affidavit affirmed by Bok Tai Siew on 7 June 1999 as seen in encl. 24. In response, Nurulaini bt Hj Ali ("Nurulaini") affirmed an affidavit in reply on 5 July 1999 as seen in encl. 26. Bok Tai Siew responded and affirmed an affidavit in reply on 19 July 1999 as seen in encl. 27. Nurulaini in turn affirmed an affidavit in reply on 13 August 1999 as seen in encl. 29 by way of a response. Finally, Bok Tai Siew affirmed a last affidavit in reply on 3 September 1999 as reflected in encl. 30. Without a doubt, these affidavits would be referred to in the course of adjudicating encl. 32.

The core of the plaintiff's arguments as seen in the supporting affidavits may be summarised as follows. The plaintiff said that the proposed amendment was indeed necessary as it would identify the exact photograph, the copyright of which was said to belong to the plaintiff. That copyright, according to the plaintiff, had been infringed and the amendment was thus necessary to complete the statement of claim.

The defendant, on the other end