JUDGMENT

Gan Techiong JC:

Introduction

[1] On 9 April 2025 this Court issued two orders. The first order was to dismiss the Defendants' application (encl 67) to strike out the Plaintiff's claim. The second order was to dismiss the Plaintiff's application (encl 74) for leave to add a new defendant and to amend his Amended Statement of Claim. I shall only be addressing the Plaintiff's application herein because he has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[2] This is not a new case. It was filed in October 2023. Trial dates in July 2025 have been fixed and parties are expected to be ready to proceed.

[3] In deciding to dismiss the Plaintiff's said application to add a new defendant and to amend his Amended Statement of Claim, I was guided by the judgment of the Federal Court in Hong Leong Finance Bhd v. Low Thiam Hoe & Another Appeal & Another Appeal; [2016] 1 MLJ 301; [2015] 8 CLJ 1 which ruled, inter alia, that it is not necessary for an opposing party to file any affidavit to oppose an application for leave to amend pleadings if the applicant's supporting affidavit does not state any cogent reasons. The full reasons for my decision are as explained below.

Background Facts

[4] The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants are based on allegations of libel and harassment.

[5] The introduction part in the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim is lengthy, 25 paragraphs long and spanning over 10 pages, narrating about some business ventures that went awry without any word about the Plaintiff's cause of action of libel or harassment. From para 26 onwards, libel and harassment were pleaded.

[6] On 8 March 2024, leave had in fact been granted by this Court for the Plaintiff to amend his Reply & Defence to Counterclaim and/or his Statement of Claim. That was about 12 months prior to the Plaintiff filing his current application (encl 74) in March 2025. A screenshot of para 3 of the sealed Order dated 8 March 2024 is pasted below:

3. Plaintif dibenarkan untuk memfailkan Jawapan dan Pembelaan Kepada Tuntutan Balas Defendan-defendan dan.'atau meminda Writ dan Pemyataan Tunlutan Plaintif dalam tempoh 14 hari daripada tarikh penerimaan dokumen-dokumen yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 1.

[7] The Plaintiff did proceed to file his Amended Statement of Claim, making full use of the leave to make extensive amendments. His Amended Statement of Claim (encl 48) was filed on 6 May 2024 - which was exactly 10 months before he filed his current application for leave to amend again. The Defendants filed their Amended Defence and Amended Counterclaim on 23 May 2024.

The Plaintiff's Application Dated 6 March 2025 (Enclosure 74)

[8] The Plaintiff's said application was filed on 6 March 2025 for leave to add a new defendant (to be the 3rd Defendant) and also to amend his Amended Statement of Claim. A screenshot showing the first prayer in his application is shown below:

[9] In his supporting affidavit dated 6 March 2025, the Plaintiff made several averments, inter alia, that his application is to respond to the Defendants' pleadings, will cause no prejudice to the Defendants, will clarify the Plaintiff's cause of action, ie the usual grounds stated to justify an application for leave to amend pleadings as set out in Yamaha Motor Co Ltd v. Yamaha (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors; [1983] 1 MLJ 213; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 428. However, there is no explanation whatsoever about his delay for making that application.

Analysis Of The Facts And Law

[10] The fact that the Plaintiff's application (for leave to add a new defendant and to amend his Amended Statement of Claim) is numbered as the 74th enclosure in the CMS efiling system, tells us that there has been 'much water under the bridge' since the filing the of the Writ in October 2023.

[11] After having decided to dismiss the Defendants' striking-out application (encl 67) as I am of the view that the pleadings have amply set out the issues that require a trial - which is scheduled to commence in July this year, I read the Plaintiff's appli