Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SETIAKON BUILDERS SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
MAYFAIR VENTURES SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application to amend originating summons. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. detailed facts of the construction project phases. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. details of proceedings and stay applications. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court’s discretion on amendments and principles governing it. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. specific amendments and their justification. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. conclusion and order on costs. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
[Plaintiff's Application To Amend Originating Summons]
Introduction
[1] By Enel. 31, the Plaintiff ("Setiakon") is applying under O 20 r 7, O 20 r 5, O 18 r 9 and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court, 2012 ("Rules") to amend the Originating Summons ("Amend OS Application").
[2] The Defendant ("Mayfair") is opposing that application.
[3] This Judgment is the Court's decision on that application.
Salient Facts
[4] In 2016 and 2017, Mayfair had appointed Setiakon as the Main Contractor for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of a development project in Persiaran Tropicana, in Mukim Damansara, District of Petaling, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Project"). Phase 1 consisted of the construction of Blocks 1 and B1 of the Project, and Phase 2 consisted of the cons
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
