TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ZAIN v UNITED OVERSEAS LAND LTD

TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ZAIN v UNITED OVERSEAS LAND LTD

The judge refused the proposed amendment because it would introduce a new, contradictory cause of action that would change the character of the suit and complicate the trial; restitution of the lands was not a viable remedy given the prior court order for sale confirmed on appeal and subsequent sales to third parties; the prejudice could not be adequately remedied by costs; accordingly the defendants' appeal against the order allowing the amendment was allowed and the amendment was refused.

Citation
TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ ZAIN v UNITED OVERSEAS LAND LTD
Parties
Plaintiffs: Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zain & 2 Ors; First Defendant: United Overseas Land Ltd; Second and Third Defendants: Second and Third Defendants
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil (interlocutory) / Interlocutory Appeal Against Order Allowing Amendment — Decision on Application to Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Defendants' appeal allowed; application to amend the Statement of Claim refused.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation/time Bar, Restitution, Foreclosure and Charges (mortgage), Constructive Trust/fiduciary Duty, Injunctions, Prejudice and Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Equity Property Law Contract Tort Amendment of Pleadings Limitation/time Bar Restitution +4 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zain & 2 Ors

Plaintiffs

United Overseas Land Ltd

First Defendant

Second and Third Defendants

Second and Third Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil (interlocutory) / Interlocutory Appeal Against Order Allowing Amendment — Decision on Application to Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendment to plead that charges are null and void would be time‑barred
  2. 2 Whether the amendment would change the character of the suit and thereby be impermissible
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking amendment was excused

Ratio Decidendi

The judge refused the proposed amendment because it would introduce a new, contradictory cause of action that would change the character of the suit and complicate the trial; restitution of the lands was not a viable remedy given the prior court order for sale confirmed on appeal and subsequent sales to third parties; the prejudice could not be adequately remedied by costs; accordingly the defendants' appeal against the order allowing the amendment was allowed and the amendment was refused.

Court Disposition

Defendants' appeal allowed; application to amend the Statement of Claim refused.

Orders

  • Defendants' appeal allowed
  • Application to amend the Statement of Claim refused (amendment disallowed)