JUDGMENT

Elaine Yap Chin Gaik JC:

Introduction

[1] The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated 10 June 2025 was an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court on 27-5- 2025 that struck off the Appellant's application in encl 10 and allowed the respondent's Amended Statement of Claim dated 19 May 2025 ("Amended SOC").

[2] The appeal was called up at about 11.00am on 23 September 2025. The Appellant omitted to file any written submissions as directed or to attend the hearing scheduled at 10.30am.

Analysis And Findings

[3] There were various complaints of irregularities about the Notice of Appeal and the Record of Appeal filed by the Appellant. This Court considered only the substantive matters that arose from the decision of the Sessions Court Judge which relate to the application of O 20 rr 3 and 4 of the Rules of 2012 ("RC").

[4] The date of pleadings filed by the parties at the Sessions Court were as follows:

[5] The Respondent's Amended SOC was amended pursuant to O 20 r 3 of the RC which reads:

3. Amendment of pleadings without leave (O 20 r 3)

(1) A party may, without the leave of the Court , amend any pleading of his once at any time before the pleadings are deemed to be closed and, where he does so, he shall serve the amended pleading on the opposite party.

[6] According to O 18 r 20 of the RC set out below:

20. Close of pleadings (O 18 r 20)

(1) The pleadings in an action are deemed to be closed:

(a) at the expiration of fourteen days after service of the reply or, if there is no reply but only a defence to a counterclaim, after service of the defence to the counterclaim; or

(b) if neither a reply nor a defence to the counterclaim is served, at the expiration of fourteen days after service of the defence.

Pleadings in this case would have only been deemed closed on 22 May 2025. The filing and service of the Amended SOC without leave was thus in order.

[7] The Appellant then filed encl 10 pursuant to O 20 r 4 of the RC which was also procedurally in order. It reads as follows:

4. Application for disallowance of amendment made without leave (O 20 r 4)

(1) Within fourteen days after the service on a party of a writ amended under r 1(1) or of a pleading amended under r 3(1), that party may apply to the Court to disallow the amendment.

(2) Where the Court hearing an application under this rule is satisfied that if an application for leave to make the amendment in question had been made under r 5 at the date when the amendment was made under r 1(1) or r 3(1) leave to make the amendment or part of the amendment would have been refused, it shall order the amendment or that part to be struck out.

(3) Any order made on an application under this rule may be made on such terms as to costs or otherwise as the Court thinks just.

[8] Enclosure 10 was heard by the Sessions Court Judge by e-Review. There was a colourful exchange between counsel that digressed into questions around service of encl 10, which counsel for the appellant insisted had been properly served via email against objections by counsel for the respondent that this mode of service was not consented to.

[9] After hearing parties, the Sessions Court Judge accepted the Amended SOC and struck off encl 10. There were multiple emails in the Record of Appeal from solicitors for the respondent, repeatedly and in bold underlined and capped font, notifying solicitors for the appellant that they do not agree to service by email.

[10] This Court agreed entirely with the exercise of discretion and decision of the Sessions Court Judge, both in her approach to counsel and her evaluation of the propriety of the Amended SOC.

[11] The crux of the Appellant's complaint was that the amendments were a tactical response to the Appellant's application in encl 7 to strike out parts of the respondent's Reply and Defence to Counterclaim. It is difficult to see the logic of this argument, since the pending striking out was to a different pleading from the one amended.

[12] Even if encl 10 had bee