Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
DATO RICHARD DILAAN MORAIS – Appellant
Versus
RAAM KUMAR M SUPPIAH & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. good faith required for amendments (Para 1) |
| 2. background of estate administration conflict (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments for an amendment application (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s amendment (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. criteria for allowing amendments (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. plaintiff’s knowledge of 2nd will affects credibility (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. delay in raising claims indicates bad faith (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. contradictory conduct undermines credibility (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. amendments impacting reputations viewed severely (Para 22) |
| 10. legal formalities for 2nd will invalid (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 11. amendments must not disrupt original claims (Para 28 , 29) |
| 12. bad faith in amendment leads to dismissal (Para 30 , 31) |
Introduction
[1] "An amendment may wear the cloak of merit, but if sowed in bad faith and lined with procedural abuse, it cannot pass the threshold of amendment requirement". This application by the plaintiff, seeking to amend his Writ and Statement of Claim (in encl 71) pursuant to O 20 r 5 and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, raises a fundamental question of whether the Court should allow an amendment that ap
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
