PEREMESARY A/P A RAMU (mendakwa sebagai ibu yang sah kepada RUBEAN RAJ A/L RAMU) 1. ) YEO SIY HUN @ YEO SER HUAN 2. ) GRAND BEAM ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

PEREMESARY A/P A RAMU (mendakwa sebagai ibu yang sah kepada RUBEAN RAJ A/L RAMU) 1. ) YEO SIY HUN @ YEO SER HUAN 2. ) GRAND BEAM ENTERPRISE SDN BHD

The Sessions Court judge did not err: the solicitor-sworn affidavit was admissible because it narrated facts within the solicitor's personal knowledge from conducting the hearing, but the amendment application was a late afterthought filed to align pleadings with favourable evidence, would change the character of the suit and prejudiced the defendants; moreover the ruling was interlocutory and non-appealable, so the High Court refuses to overturn the dismissal of the amendment and dismisses the appeal with costs.

Citation
JA-12A-29-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Peremesary A/P A Ramu; Respondent/defendant: Yeo Siy Hun @ Yeo Ser Huan; Respondent/defendant: Grand Beam Enterprise Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 April 2022
Case Number
JA-12A-29-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Interlocutory Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Admissibility of Affidavits Sworn by Solicitors, Appealability of Interlocutory Decisions, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Tort Negligence/road Traffic Accident Evidence Amendment of Pleadings Admissibility of Affidavits Sworn by Solicitors Appealability of Interlocutory Decisions Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peremesary A/P A Ramu

Appellant/plaintiff

Yeo Siy Hun @ Yeo Ser Huan

Respondent/defendant

Grand Beam Enterprise Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Interlocutory Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff's solicitor is admissible under O.41 r.5 ROC 2012
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend the statement of claim after key witnesses had given evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Court's dismissal of the amendment application was appealable

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Court judge did not err: the solicitor-sworn affidavit was admissible because it narrated facts within the solicitor's personal knowledge from conducting the hearing, but the amendment application was a late afterthought filed to align pleadings with favourable evidence, would change the character of the suit and prejudiced the defendants; moreover the ruling was interlocutory and non-appealable, so the High Court refuses to overturn the dismissal of the amendment and dismisses the appeal with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.