Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5220
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
ORIENTAL STEEL PIPE SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
UNITED SECURITY SERVICES SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BA-12ANCvC-21-04/2024]
Amendment applications in civil proceedings are not appealable if they do not dispose of parties' final rights, per statutory interpretation of relevant laws.
Headnote:(A) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Sections 28 and 67 - Appeal regarding amendment of Defence - Court ruled that decisions on amendment applications made in the course of trial are non-appealable per Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v. Majlis Perubatan Malaysia - Further, the appeal was dismissed as the Sessions Court did not err in allowing the amendment and no prejudice was caused to the Appellant/Plaintiff. (Paras 25 and 27)
(B) Civil procedure - Legal principles on amendments - Established legal principles highlight that amendments should not prejudice the opposing party and relevant procedural law was correctly applied. (Paras 25)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant/Plaintiff appealed against the Sessions Court's decision to allow the Respondent/Defendant to amend its Defence. The critical question was whether such a decision is appealable. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Sessions Court Judge correctly exercised discretion when allowing the amendment and that it did not prejudice the Appellant/Plaintiff. (Paras 25)
Issues: The main issues were the appealability of a subordinate Court's decision to allow an amendment to pleadings and whether the Sessions Court properly exercised its discretion in that regard. (Paras 2-3)
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling established that the decision allowing amendment applications is non-appealable as it does not dispose of the final rights of the parties, supported by statutory interpretation of the relevant provisions. (Paras 20-21)
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preliminary issue of appealability raised. (Para 1) |
| 2. two main issues regarding appealability clarified. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. the governing law for civil appeals outlined. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. conditions under which appeals are permitted. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. arguments on limitations of appeal scope discussed. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. federal court precedent on appealability reaffirmed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. current appeal is deemed non-appealable. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. sessions court's decision upheld; amendments allowed. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 9. appeal dismissed, costs awarded. (Para 27) |
Introduction
[1] This appeal by the Appellant/Plaintiff arises from the Sessions Court's decision to allow the Respondent/Defendant's application to amend its Defence. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present appeal. Beyond the substantive issue of whether the Sessions Court was correct in allowing the Respondent/Defendant's application to amend its Defence, this appeal also raises a critical preliminary procedural question: whether a subordinate Court's decision to allow or disallow an application to amend pleadings, as in this case, is appealable.
The Twin Issues
[2] The primary issue for consideration in this appeal is the question of whether the decision by the Sessions Court which allowed the Respondent/Defendant to amend its Defence is appealable to this Court.
[3] If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, this Court is required to deliberate on the issue of whether the Sessions Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the said application by the Respondent/Defendant.
The Law And Principles In Relation To The First Issue
[4] The law governing civil appeals from the subordinate courts to the High Court is stated in s 28 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 . The relevant section provides as follows:
Civil appeals from subordinate courts
28. (1) No appeal shall lie to the High Court in any of the following cases:
(a) subject to any other written law, from a decision of a subordinate Court in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter is ten thousand ringgit or less except on a question of law;
(b) where a subordinate Court dismissed any application for a summary judgment;
(c) where a subordinate Court dismissed any application to strike out any writ or pleading; and
(d) where a subordinate Court allowed any application to set aside a judgment in default.
(2) An appeal shall lie from any decision of a subordinate Court in any proceedings relating to maintenance of wives or children, irrespective of the amount involved.
[5] In the corresponding provision of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 that relates to civil appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, s 68 reads as follows:
Non-appealable matters
68. (1) No appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal in any of the following cases:
(a) when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the claim (exclusive of interest) is less than two hundred and fifty thousand ringgit, except with the leave of the Court of Appeal;
(b) where the judgment or order is made by consent of parties;
(c) where the judgment or order relates to costs only which by law are left to the discretion of the Court, except with the leave of the Court of Appeal;
(d) where, by any written law for the time being in force, the judgment or order of the High Court, is expressly declared to be final;
(e) where a High Court dismissed any application for a summary judgment;
(f) where a High Court dismissed any application to strike out any writ or pleading; and
(g) where a High Court allowed any application to set aside a judgment in default.
(2) (Deleted by Act A886).
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decision of a Judge in Chambers in a summary way on an interpleader summons, where the facts are not in dispute, except by leave of the Court of Appeal, but an appeal shall lie from a jud
