JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

[1] Before this Court , there are two interlocutory applications:

(a) Enclosure 60:

The Defendant's application to amend the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim pursuant to O 20 r 5 and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012; and

(b) Enclosure 75:

The application of Perbadanan Pengurusan Pangsapuri Molek to be added as Second Plaintiff pursuant to O 15 r 6(2)(b), O 20 r 5 and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012.

[2] This Court shall address each application in turn.

[3] Enclosure 75 is an application by Perbadanan Pengurusan Pangsapuri Molek (the "MC"), filed on 6 February 2026, pursuant to O 15 r 6(2)(b), O 20 r 5 and/or Order 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC") for the following orders:

(a) That the MC be granted leave to intervene and be joined in this proceeding as a Plaintiff and named as the Second Plaintiff;

(b) That the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim be amended as shown in Annexure A;

(c) That all cause papers filed in this proceeding be deemed amended in accordance with the amended intitulement;

(d) That costs of this application and consequential amendments be costs in the cause; and

(e) Such other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.

[4] The application is supported by the Affidavit in Support affirmed by Keith Woo Chi Leung, Chairman of the MC, on 6 February 2026 (encl 76) and the Affidavit in Reply affirmed by him on 5 March 2026 (encl 85). The MC's Written Submissions were filed on 13 March 2026 (encl 86).

[5] The Defendant opposes this application through her Affidavit in Reply dated 24 February 2026 (encl 81), Written Submissions dated 13 March 2026 (encl 88) and Reply Written Submissions dated 25 March 2026 (encl 90).

[6] The Plaintiff, is an interim statutory body established under the Strata Management Act 2013 [Act 757] for the management of Pangsapuri Molek (Molek Regency) in Johor Bahru.

[7] On 9 February 2024, the Plaintiff filed this action against the Defendant, a Singaporean citizen and owner of residential unit C-10-03 at Pangsapuri Molek. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant carried out extensive and unauthorised renovation works to the said unit, including hacking of shear walls, drilling through building beams, modifying the plumbing and sewerage systems and installing windows without approval. These works are alleged to have compromised the structural integrity of the building and raised serious safety concerns for all residents.

[8] A strata register was opened and the MC came into existence by operation of law. The first Annual General Meeting of the MC was held on 15 November 2025, at which the management committee members were elected.

[9] The one-month period stipulated under s 27(2) of Act 757 expired on 15 December 2025. The Plaintiff was dissolved on 15 February 2026, being three months after the first AGM of the MC, pursuant to s 27(1) of Act 757.

[10] The MC passed a resolution on 12 January 2026 to intervene in this action. The application in encl 75 was filed on 6 February 2026, that is, before the dissolution of the Plaintiff on 15 February 2026.

[11] The Defendant opposes the MC's application on the following grounds:

(a) The Plaintiff and the MC are separate legal entities and accordingly the MC has no connection to this suit;

(b) The MC has no locus standi or legal capacity to intervene;

(c) The Plaintiff was dissolved on 15 February 2026 and no longer has locus standi;

(d) The application creates double liability against the Defendant as both the Plaintiff and MC would be claiming the same relief;

(e) The application was filed late and constitutes an abuse of process; and

(f) The proper cause of action was to substitute the MC for the Plaintiff, not to add the MC as Second Plaintiff.

[12] This Court identifies three issues for determination:

Issue 1: Whether this proceeding has abated and become a nullity followi