JUDGMENT

Choong Yeow Choy J:

Introduction

[1] This application, encapsulated in Encl 57, is brought by the plaintiff seeking leave to amend its Statement of Claim. The proposed amendments concern only the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, a law firm and its sole proprietor respectively.

[2] At first glance, the application may appear routine. However, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have chosen to oppose Encl 57, thereby necessitating this court's careful consideration of the competing arguments advanced by the parties.

The Dominant Issue

[3] The central question for determination is whether this is an appropriate case for the court to exercise its discretion in favour of granting leave to amend. Put succinctly, the issue is whether the plaintiff's application offends any of the well-established principles under which such leave ought properly to be refused.

The Pertinent Background Facts

[4] The material background is largely undisputed.

[5] On 23 July 2021, the plaintiff, a property developer, paid a stakeholder sum of RM2,000,000.00 into the stakeholder account of the 2nd Defendant, the solicitors for the 1st defendant. The sum was to be held as stakeholder pending the execution of a proposed Joint Venture Agreement ("JVA").

[8] However, the JVA was never finalised despite protracted negotiations spanning approximately three and a half years. On 12 January 2024, the plaintiff formally terminated the negotiations and demanded a refund of the RM2,000,000.00 stakeholder sum.

[7] In this action, the plaintiff seeks recovery of the stakeholder monies together with accrued interest from the 1st defendant, who had claimed to act as the lawful Power of Attorney holder for the respective landowners of 35 parcels of land situated in Gertak Sanggul, Pulau Pinang ("the Lands").

[8] On 24 March 2025, this court granted summary judgment against the 1st defendant for the said sum. The 1st defendant has not filed any appeal against that decision.

[9] As against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, the plaintiff's claims are premised on two principal grounds, namely (i) breach of solicitor's undertaking; and (ii) breach of stakeholder duty, in that the stakeholder monies were released to the 1st defendant without the plaintiff's consent and contrary to the terms of the undertaking.

The Amendments Sought

[10] The proposed amendments are to add the following paragraphs, namely. 29A, 29B, 34A, 41A and 41B.

29A. Setelah penzahiran secara butir-butir lanjut dan jelas terhadap Defendan Ke-2 dan Defendan Ke-3 pada sekitar bulan Mei 2025, plaintif mendapati bahawa wang stakeholder tersebut telah dilepaskan kepada Defendan Ke-1 pada 28 Julai 2021 (5 hari selepas serahan cek berjumlah RM2,000,000.00 daripada peguam plaintif). Pelepasan wang stakeholder tersebut kepada Defendan Ke-1 bukan menurut terma-terma dalam surat bertarikh 23 Julai 2021.

29B. Defendan Ke-2 dan Defendan Ke-3 telah menyembunyikan dan enggan mendedahkan fakta sebenarnya wang stakeholder telah dilepaskan pada 28 Julai 2021 dan sentiasa memberikan satu gambaran palsu bahawa wang tersebut berada dalam akaun stakeholdernya.

34A. Defendan Ke-2 dan Defendan Ke-3 telahpun memungkiri aku janjinya yang dikenakan dalam surat bertarikh 23 Julai 2021 apabila terus melepaskan wang stakeholder berjumlahkan RM2,000,000.00 kepada Defendan Ke-1 pada 28 Julai 2021 yang bercanggah dengan akuianii yang dikenakan iaitu "We are instructed by our client to enclose herewith our ABMB cheque no 009233 dated 23 Julai 2021 for the sum of Ringgit Malaysia Two Million (RM2,000,000.00) only being the stakeholder sum (hereinafter referred to as the "Stakeholder Sum") to your firm as stakeholders on your undertaking not to release the said sum to the Attorney until the JVA has been duly executed by the Attorney and subject to the compliance of the following terms and conditions and in the JVA:"

41A. Plaintif telah mengalami kerugian besar sekurang-kurangnya RM2,000,000.00 akibat kemungkiran defendan-defendan tersebut yang merampas wang stakeholder atau pe