Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2563
SESSION COURT LANGKAWI
WINARTA LALUSAH – Appellant
Versus
JOHN DOE & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: KD-A53KJ-29-07/2023]
The court emphasized that amendments to pleadings must not prejudice the opposing party and must be made in good faith, rejecting opportunistic attempts to alter narratives after the closure of a case.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Sections 28 and 68 - Interlocutory application - Defendant's application to amend statement of defence dismissed as it was not made in good faith and would prejudice the Plaintiff - The Court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the integrity of judicial processes. (Paras 10, 12, 26, 31)
(B) Amendment of pleadings - Courts generally allow amendments but must ensure they do not cause prejudice to the opposing party or manipulate the proceedings - The Defendant's late application was deemed an abuse of process. (Paras 20, 28)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff initiated action against the Defendant for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident on 19 March 2021. The Defendant initially admitted involvement but later sought to amend her defence after the Plaintiff closed their case, claiming a new version of events. (Paras 5, 6, 10)
Findings of Court:
The Court found the Defendant's application to amend the defence was opportunistic and prejudicial to the Plaintiff, dismissing it to uphold judicial integrity and efficiency. (Paras 10, 31)
Issues: The main issues included whether the application was bona fide, whether the dismissal was justified, and the appealability of the interlocutory application. (Paras 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Defendant's application was not made in good faith and allowing it would undermine procedural fairness and judicial efficiency, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to procedural rules. (Paras 12, 26)
Result: The application is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Appeal Against The Decision Of The Defendant's Application In Enclosure 17)
Introduction
[1] This judgment pertains to the Notice of Appeal (refer to encl 33) filed by the Defendant's counsel. This appeal is filed against the decision of the Langkawi Sessions Court delivered on 13 March 2025, whereby the Court dismissed the Defendant's application in encl 17. The said dismissal was premised on specific grounds, which will be elaborated upon in detail herein. The Defendant contends that the learned Sessions Court Judge erred in fact and in law in reaching the said decision, and this appeal seeks to challenge the reasoning and findings of the lower Court in relation to the Defendant's application.
[2] The Defendant had earlier filed encl 17, seeking leave to amend the Defendant's statement of defence at a stage where the Plaintiff had already closed their case. Upon careful deliberation of the arguments advanced by both parties and the applicable legal principles, this Court found that the Defendant's application was not meritorious and accordingly dismissed it. Following the said dismissal, the Defendant proceeded to file a notice of appeal, now marked as encl 33.
[3] Having considered the circumstances of the case, it is my considered view that encl 17 ought not to be allowed, and the reasons for this determination shall be set out in detail in the following paragraphs.
[4] Upon a thorough examination of the facts, relevant legal principles, and applicable precedents, the Court has reached a decision to dismiss the application. Consequently, the Court orders the Defendant to pay costs in the sum of RM2,000.00 to the Plaintiff.
Background Of The Case
[5] This is an action initiated by the Plaintiff against John Doe and the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the Defendant') for pain, injuries, and damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of an accident that occurred on 19 March 2021 at Jalan Ulu Melaka. The accident involved a motorcycle bearing registration number KEV 1204, which was ridden by the Defendant, and another motorcycle bearing registration number KDM 8516, which was ridden by the Plaintiff.
[6] Curiously, despite overwhelming evidence of the accident, the Defendant has taken a rather creative approach in her defence. In para 3 of the statement of defence at encl 6, the Defendant boldly claims that she did not meet with an accident at all. This assertion is not only astonishing but also borders on the absurdity, one might even wonder if the Plaintiff simply collided with thin air or perhaps an invisible force at Jalan Ulu Melaka on that fateful day. The Defendant's version of events, or rather, her complete denial of reality, is nothing short of remarkable, showcasing her imagination.
[7] The Plaintiff has named the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration number KEV 1204, which was involved in the accident with the Plaintiff, as John Doe in this action, as neither the rider nor the owner of the said motorcycle had lodged any police report regarding the incident. The Defendant only lodged a police report admitting involvement in the accident, as confirmed by the Investigating Officer (SP2) who testified in Court on 8 October 2024.
[8] This application is made under the pretext that the Defendant has only now obtained a new version of the accident, conveniently at this stage of the proceedings. The Defendant insists that this application is not an attempt to alter the version of events or deny involvement but merely to plead this newly discovered version.
[9] What the Defendant truly seeks, in reality, is nothing short of an artful revision of events, one that conveniently absolves them of liability. With remarkable audacity, the Defendant now attempts to recast the narrative in a more palatable light, as if their original account was somehow incomplete or flawed from the outset. Having presented a version of events that directly contradicts the Plaintiff's, the Defend
