Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
RANDY NG KAI SHENG – Appellant
Versus
BEMED (PTJ) SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's decisions on applications heard. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. material facts of the share sale and consultant agreements. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. defendant's application to strike out amendments. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 4. contentions surrounding amendment validity. (Para 24 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. judicial interpretation of amendment rules. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. clarification of 'prejudice' in legal amendments. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 7. court's stance on minor procedural errors. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
[Application To Strike Out Amendment Made To Statement Of Claim And Certain Paragraphs In Reply]
Introduction
[1] On 2 April 2025, I heard two applications.
[2] The plaintiff filed for summary judgment of his claim. [See encl 17].
[3] The defendant filed under encl 24:
i. To strike out an amendment made by the plaintiff to para 21 of the Statement of Claim dated 4 June 2024 pursuant to O 20 r 4(2) and O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 [" ROC 2012"]; and
ii. To strike out paras 7 (a), (b) (f), 10 (b), (j), (k) (m) and 12 (e) of the plaintiff's Reply dated 26 August 2024 under O 18 r 19 ROC 2012.
[4] I gra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
