Amendments to pleadings that substantively alter the character of a claim risk being dismissed if they hinder judicial process.

[1] These 2 appeals were heard together as they arose from a High Courts decision on 17 September 2017 in allowing the respondents application in Enclosure 90 to re-amend the Amended Statement of Claim dated 1 September 2016 in Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: 22NCVC-439-08/2018. The appellants (Edisi Utama and E & O Trading for short), qua the second and third defendants in the Court below, filed 2 separate appeals against the said High Courts decision. For reasons which we shall state in our judgment, the appeals were allowed. Where appropriate, we shall refer to both appellants respectively as Edisi Utama and E & O Trading. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to draw attention to one aspect of the appeal proceedings before this Court. These appeals were heard on 22 November 2017 upon the filing of a certificate of urgency by the appellants on 15 November 2017, barely 2 months after the High Courts decision which, as aforestated, was delivered on 17 September 2017. We proceeded to hear these appeals without grounds of judgments as these were interlocutory appeals based on affidavit evidence.

[2] To appreciate the contentions that had been raised before this Court, it would be desirable to examine in summary the material facts. The first to fourth respondents in these appeals, who are the plaintiffs in the Court below, are owners of the units in Dua Residency Condominium (Dua Residency) which were purchased from Edisi Utama in accordance with the Dua Residency Sale Agreements entered into by both parties (the Sale Agreements). The fifth respondent is a body corporate established pursuant to s 39 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 [Act 318] which represents the interests of all the owners and residents in Dua Residency including the first to fourth respondents. The appellants are in the business of premier luxury lifestyle property development. Both appellants are subsidiaries of E & O Berhad (E & O). Through its subsidiaries, E & O promotes, develops and builds premier luxury properties locally and internationally.

[3] Edisi Utama was the registered owner of all that freehold land situated at Geran 58582 for Lot 341 Kuala Lumpur, measuring in total approximately 207,507 square feet (the land). In 2004, Edisi Utama developed that portion of the land measuring approximately 177,938 square feet upon which Dua Residency was erected. In 2003, Edisi Utama constructed a 3-storey retail and restaurant complex called the Annexe adjacent to Dua Residency on the remaining portion of the land measuring approximately 29,569 square feet. According to the respondents, by the Pre-Sale Brochure used by Edisi Utama in advertising and promoting the sale of Dua Residency Units, Edisi Utama had held out that the Annexe would thereafter serve to complement the future residential facilities of Dua Residency that would be made available for use by the residents.

[4] On 17 November 2009, Edisi Utama effected the transfer of the portion of the land upon which the Annexe was erected to E & O Trading. In 2013, it came to the knowledge of the fifth respondent that there was a reduction in the provision of facilities and amenities available at the Annexe as a result of termination by Edisi Utama of the tenancies of proprietors of outlets at the Annexe. By April 2014, most of the tenants of the Annexe had left. The respondents allege that despite repeated requests by the fifth respondent to the appellants to solve the issue of the reduction of the provisions of amenities and facilities at the Annexe and release of information on the