Back
2010 MarsdenLR 1699
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
U-MENG HOLDINGS SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
TAN SRI DATUK IBRAHIM MOHAMED; AMBANK (M) BHD (THIRD PARTY) – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: A-03(IM)-215-2009]
Proposed amendments to pleadings must be concise statements of fact, not detailed evidence, to ensure fair trial and comply with procedural rules.
Headnote:(A) Rules of the High Court 1980 - Order 20 r 5; Order 18 r 7 - Application to amend statement of defence - Proposed amendments were found to offend rules of pleadings, containing material evidence rather than concise statements of fact - Amendments deemed vexatious and an abuse of process, prejudicing fair trial of respondent's action. (Paras 20, 24, 35, 69)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The learned Judicial Commissioner exercised discretion correctly in refusing amendment, finding proposed alterations enhanced the appellants' position without due consideration to fairness in pleadings. (Paras 68, 82)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's application to amend their statement of defence was dismissed by the registrar and subsequently by the Judicial Commissioner, leading to this appeal. The proposed amendments included several paragraphs that, according to the court, introduced evidence rather than concise facts, leading to potential prejudgment in the ongoing case.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the dismissal of the appeal, agreeing that the proposed amendments infringed the rules of pleadings and would not serve justice in the case.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the admissibility of proposed amendments and their compliance with rules of pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that amendments must be concise and should not present detailed evidence that could mislead the trial; the learned Commissioner acted within discretion in denying prejudicial amendments.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. contractual terms and considerations (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. refusal of amendment to pleadings (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. arguments for proposed amendments (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 5. rules of pleading and case law (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 6. court's discretion on amendments and justness (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 76) |
Introduction
[1] On 12 October 2001, the respondent filed his writ of summons and his statement of claim.
[2] On 6 December 2001, the appellants filed their statement of defence.
[3] On 20 March 2002, the registrar struck out the respondent's writ of summons and the statement of claim.
[4] On 17 March 2003, the respondent's appeal to the judge in chambers against the decision of the registrar was dismissed.
[5] Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal to this court and his appeal was allowed on 14 June 2005. This meant that the respondent's writ of summons and the statement of claim were re-instated.
[6] On 3 November 2006, by way of summons in chambers in encl 43, the appellants filed an application to amend their statement of defence.
[7] On 27 July 2007, the registrar dismissed encl 43.
[8] On 3 August 2007, the appellants filed an appeal to the judge in chambers in encl 72 against the decision of the registrar in dismissing encl 43.
[9] On 23 June 2009, the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") dismissed the appellants' appeal in encl 72.
[10] On 1 July 2009, the appellants filed an appeal to this court.
The Appellants' Statement Of Defence Filed On 6 December 2001
[11] There were 33 paragraphs in the statement of defence filed on 6 December 2001. And altogether there were 11 sub-paragraphs to that statement of defence.
The Third Party - Ambank (M) Berhad
[12] The statement of claim by the appellants against the third party was dated 18 September 2006.
[13] And the statement of defence of the third party against the claim by the appellants was dated 2 October 2006.
The Salient Facts
[14] Within a short compass, the salient of facts may be stated as follows. By way of a written contract dated 5 August 1993, the respondent agreed to transfer to the first appellant (U-Meng Holdings Sdn Bhd) 5.1 million shares in Damansara Realty Berhad (hereinafter referred to as the "DRB shares") in consideration of the first appellant assigning to the respondent the rights and benefits of two separate judgment debts secured by Yew Securities Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as the "Yew Securities"). Both these two separate judgment debts were from the Ipoh High court, namely:
(i) a judgment obtained by Yew Securities on 30 August 1986 against Safuan Holdings Sdn Bhd in the Ipoh High court videcivil suit number 23-316-86 for a sum of RM2,188,635.54 together with interest thereon at 16 per centum per annum; and
(ii) a judgment obtained by Yew Securities on 18 March 1987 against Myriacorp Sdn Bhd in the Ipoh High court vide civil suit number 23-357-86 for a sum of RM5,487,868.45 together with interest thereon at 16 per centum per annum.
[15] These two separate judgment debts shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "judgment debts" based on the terms and conditions as set out in the said written contract.
[16] By virtue of the said written contract, the respondent delivered to the appellants the duly registrable memorandum of transfer together with the share certificates in marketable lots of 1,000 shares each in respect of the DRB shares. This was done sometime after October 1994 which were accepted by the first appellant.
[17] As consideration of the transfer of the DRB shares by the respondent to the first appellant and pursuant to the said written contract, the second appellant (Foong Weng Yew) executed for and on behalf of the first appellant a deed of assignment dated 17 January 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "deed of assignment") assigning the judgment debts to
