The court emphasizes the need for timely amendments to pleadings and the necessity of providing valid reasons for delays, with failure to explain such delays leading to rejection of applications.

SM Komathy JC:

[1]The first to the eighth plaintiffs applied to amend their statement of claim dated 17 September 2009 pertaining to assertions made against the 15th defendant. The application is supported by the affidavit of Sugumaran a/l Nagapen affirmed on 25 October 2013. The 15th defendant opposed the application on procedural and substantive grounds.

THE FACTS

[2]The factual matrix relevant to this application is as follows. The late Wong Tuck Onn (‘the deceased’) was the owner of three commercial lots in Palm Court Condominium in Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur. He partitioned these lots and rented them out to the plaintiffs. The tenancy agreements between the deceased and the plaintiffs were entered into at different times between 1998 and 2002. The agreements expired in 2004 and thereafter the plaintiffs became monthly tenants.

[3]The plaintiffs continued to carry on business in the condominium without any disturbances until the establishment of the Joint Management Body (‘JMB’) for Palm Court Condominium on 26 January 2008.

[4]When the JMB took charge of the management of the condominium from the developer, it introduced numerous changes. In April 2008, the main entrance to the condominium that was opposite Jalan Sultan Abdul Samad was closed, and was moved to the gate opposite Jalan Berhala. This move adversely affected the business of the plaintiffs as their customers no longer had easy access to their shops. By letter dated 10 June 2008, of the Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (‘DBKL’) informed the deceased that the partitions had been put up illegally and required him to either submit the requisite plans for approval or to demolish them.

[5]The deceased passed away on 16 March 2009, and on 26 August 2009, the plaintiffs were served with notices from DBKL under s 79 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974

[6]On 17 September 2009, the plaintiffs instituted this action against the JMB and its 11 committee members, DBKL, the developer of the Condominium and the estate of the deceased (‘the 15th defendant’) for damages and loss suffered as a result of the closure of the main entrance along Jalan Sultan Abdul Samad by JMB. On the same day, an application was made by the plaintiffs for a mandatory injunction, inter alia, to restrain DBKL and JMB from demolishing the partitions put up by the deceased. The application was not served on the developer and the 15th defendant. On 16 June 2010, the court dismissed the injunction application, and also the plaintiffs’ claim against DBKL, JMB and its committee members. With the dismissal of the claim against these defendants, only the plaintiffs’ claim against the developer and the 15th defendant remained.

[7]Following the dismissal of the action against the other defendants the plaintiffs took no action to proceed with their claim for a period of about three years. Then by letter dated 22 April 2013, the plaintiffs’ solicitors notified the court that the claim against the developer and the 15th defendant was still pending and requested for a case management hearing. During case management, directions were given and the case was fixed for hearing on 13 and 14 November 2013. The court was informed that the 15th defendant would be filing an application to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim.

[8]On 6 September 2013, 15th defendant filed an application to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim on the grounds, inter alia, that the statement of claim did not disclose a cause of action against the deceased. This led to the plaintiffs’ filing the present application on 25 October 2013, to amend their statement of claim.

THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM

[9]The plaintiffs’ claim against