JUDGMENT

Isa Aziz Ibrahim JC:

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 74 was a Notice of Application dated 23 September 2025 ("NA") filed by the Defendants to amend their Defence dated 7 September 2023 (Enclosure 7).

[2] The said NA was filed on 23 September 2025 and heard on 25 September 2025 on an urgent basis. The reason for the urgency was that the ongoing status of the case was already in the midst of trial (part heard since April 2025), of which the Plaintiff had already closed her case.

[3] To be precise, the intention to amend the Defence was first disclosed by the Senior Federal Counsel to the Court at the stage where the Defendants' second witness was in the midst of testifying on 23 September 2025.

[4] I dismissed the said NA with costs of RM5,000.00 on 25 September 2025. For the record, I thereafter instructed for the trial to continue on the following dates:

3 November 2025 28 November 2025 27 January 2026

4 November 2025 4 December 2025 28 January 2026

10 November 2025 19 December 2025

11 November 2025 26 January 2026

a collective total of 10 more trial days.

[5] For the record, the trial of the matter had already proceeded for 8 days before Justice Mohd Radzi bin Abdul Hamid (as he then was). Trial was held on:

7 April 2025 4 July 2025

8 April 2025 24 July 2025

9 April 2025 25 July 2025

10 April 2025 22 September 2025 (before me)

[6] Up to this stage, 5 witnesses had testified on behalf of the Plaintiff, who then closed her case; and the Defendants have thus far, brought 2 witnesses.

Brief Chronology And Facts Of The Case

[7] The Writ and Statement of Claim in this case was filed on 23 June 2023. It is essentially a medical negligence action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. The Plaintiff was a patient at Hospital Melaka, a government hospital. D1 is the Government of Malaysia and D2 to D17 were the medical practitioners who attended to or cared for her whilst she was a patient at the said hospital.

[8] The Plaintiff is claiming, inter alia, for damages due to the negligent care and treatment caused and/or given by D2 to D17 whilst she was admitted there for the birth of her second child in 2020.

[9] The Writ and Statement of Claim were served upon the Defendants, who entered their appearance on 31 July 2023. The Defence was then filed on 7 September 2023.

[10] The first Pre-Trial Case Management instructions were given on 9 October 2023. And after approximately 10 case management dates, spanning a period from October 2023 until April 2025 (almost 19 months), parties were ready for trial. And, it must be noted that not at any point of time therein, did any of the parties contemplate making any amendments to their pleadings.

[11] All trial documents were filed on 7 April 2025, including the bundle of documents which included a certain MRI Brain Scan Report stored in a compact disc ("CD") which can be said now to be the raison d'etre of the Defendants' amendment application.

[12] The trial then commenced on 7 April 2025, presumably with all documents to be considered, scrutinised and highlighted at trial through the respective witnesses, concluded and completed. At least, that was what was contemplated by all parties, including this Honourable Court at that material time.

[13] However, on 19 September 2025, the Defendants filed in another affidavit affirmed by Dr. Davendran A/L Kanesan dated 18 September 2025, purportedly being a further expert report by the said good doctor who is a consultant neurosurgeon. The crux of the contents of the said affidavit, inter alia, is a further expert opinion by way of an addendum to the said doctor's initial medical report dated 3 October 2023 (filed earlier in Court ).

[14] The said affidavit contained a report that seemed to suggest that based on the said MRI Brain Scan, the Plaintiff had a congenital disease of "Undiagnosed Chiari Malformation Type I" since birth.

[15] In a nutshell, it purports to add to the Defence of the defendants in the form of an "alternative causation" to the condition t