Back
2026 MarsdenLR 123
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
QUAY CHEW SOON, J
BEVERLY DENTISTREE SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
ARLENA PHILIP LEE – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCC-286-05/2025]
Amendments to pleadings are allowed if they are filed before the close of pleadings or are bona fide, do not fundamentally change the suit's character, and cause no irremediable prejudice. Procedural rules are interpreted liberally to ensure all relevant issues are adjudicated on their merits.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 20 Rule 3 and 5 - Amendment of pleadings - Procedural validity - Amendments made without leave of court before close of pleadings are permissible as an absolute right under Order 20 Rule 3(1) - The threshold for disallowing such amendments is whether the application would have been refused had a formal leave application been made - Procedural rules exist to facilitate, not obstruct, the administration of justice; the court's focus is on the real issues in controversy. (Paras 10, 11, 21, 23)
(B) Amendment of pleadings - Bona fides and prejudice - Amendment is generally allowed if it is bona fide, does not cause irremediable prejudice, and does not alter the fundamental character of the suit - Clarification or particularization of existing facts does not constitute a withdrawal of an admission, nor does it necessarily change the cause of action - Injustice to the other party is the primary test, and prejudice must be real, substantive, and irreducible through cost orders. (Paras 12, 19, 44, 56, 61)
Facts of the case:
The defendant sought to disallow certain amendments made to the statement of claim and the defence to the counterclaim, arguing that they were not bona fide, amounted to a recantation of admissions, altered the character of the suit, and resulted in prejudice. The plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants contended the amendments were filed prior to the close of pleadings and were necessary for a complete ventilation of the issues.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the amendments were filed within the period permitted by the rules of procedure. The changes were found to be legitimate efforts to clarify and quantify existing claims rather than attempts to introduce new causes of action or improperly withdraw admissions. The defendant failed to demonstrate any irremediable prejudice that could not be addressed through the normal trial process, such as discovery, cross-examination, or cost orders.
Issues: The main issues were whether the amendments were procedurally valid under the rules of court, whether they were made in good faith, and whether they prejudiced the defendant to an extent that would render them impermissible.
Ratio Decidendi: Amendments to pleadings should be approached liberally to ensure the real controversy between parties is determined on its merits. When amendments are made before the close of pleadings, they are procedurally valid as of right; even where leave is contested, the court will allow them if they are bona fide, not intended to cause injustice, and do not introduce entirely inconsistent, new characterizations of the action that cannot be remedied by costs.
Result: Application dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the dispute and nature of impugned amendments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. liberal judicial policy regarding amendments to pleadings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. procedural validity of amendments filed before pleadings close. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. absence of delay and proof of bona fide intent. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 5. amendments clarifying existing claims do not change action character. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 6. clarification of facts does not constitute withdrawal of admissions. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 7. only irremediable prejudice warrants refusal of court-authorized amendments. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 8. interests of justice favor resolving disputes on merits. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Defendant ("D") filed a notice of application dated 12 December 2025 in encl 25 to disallow certain amendments ("impugned amendments") made:- (a) by the Plaintiffs in their Amended Statement of Claim; and (b) by the 3rd to the 6th Defendants in the counterclaim ("counterclaim defendants") their Amended Defence to D's Counterclaim. Enclosure 25 is made under O 20 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012").
[2] On 12 February 2026, I dismissed D's application in encl 25. Here are my reasons.
Background Facts
[3] The Plaintiffs initiated a claim against D seeking damages and a declaration that D:
(a) breached her duties as a fiduciary and director and shareholder of the Plaintiffs;
(b) breached her duties as an employee of the Plaintiffs;
(c) is liable to account to the Plaintiffs for all sums she has collected on behalf of the Plaintiffs;
(d) is liable to provide all the source documents requested by the Plaintiffs; and
(e) wrongfully terminated the registration for the 'person in charge' of the 1st Plaintiff.
[4] D in turn filed a counterclaim pleading breach of fiduciary duties, breach of trust, negligence and conspiracy to injure. D seeks damages and the production of account statements and financial records for the purpose of an assessment to determine the profits obtained by the Plaintiffs, as well as the amount of money misappropriated by the 4th to 6th defendants in the counterclaim.
The Defendant's Application In Enclosure 25
[5] Enclosure 25 prayed for the following:
"(a) Sebahagian pindaan Plaintif-Plaintif (dalam tindakan asal) di Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda bertarikh 24 November 2025 yang difailkan sebagai Kandungan 24 di perenggan 33.4A diabaikan dan pernyataan-pernyataan yang asal dikembalikan seperti di Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 9 Mei 2025 yang difailkan sebagai Kandungan 2;
(b) Sebahagian pindaan Defendan Ke-3 hingga Defendan Ke-6 (dalam tuntutan balas) di Pembelaan Terpinda Defendan Ke-3 hingga Ke-6 terhadap Tuntutan Balas Defendan dalam Tindakan Asal bertarikh 19 November 2025 yang difailkan sebagai Kandungan 23 di perenggan 15.5 dan 20.3.2 di abaikan dan pernyataan-pernyataan yang asal di kembalikan seperti di Pembelaan Defendan Ke-3 hingga Ke-6 terhadap Tuntutan Balas Defendan dalam Tindakan Asal bertarikh 14 Oktober 2025 yang difailkan sebagai Kandungan 16;"
The Impugned Amendments
[6] D objects to the impugned amendment in para 33.4A of the Amended Statement of Claim. Whereby the Plaintiffs added an additional prayer to the reliefs sought. Namely:
'33.4A RM88,000.00 as special damages;"
[7] In respect of the counterclaim defendants' Amended Defence D's Counterclaim, D objects the impugned amendments in para 15.5 and para 20.3.2 therein.
[8] The amended para 15.5 of the counterclaim defendants' Amended Defence D's Counterclaim is reproduced below.
"15.5 Arlena was formally reprimanded due to her lapses and failures that have been adequately set out above. In respect of resignation of Dato' Francis Ng, Howard Ng, Alex Ng and AKH from BDSB, the same was done in accordance wit
