THURGAS INDUSTRIES SDN BHD CHANDRASEGARAN A/L VEERYAH (BERNIAGA SEBAGAI THURGAS AGENCIES)

THURGAS INDUSTRIES SDN BHD CHANDRASEGARAN A/L VEERYAH (BERNIAGA SEBAGAI THURGAS AGENCIES)

The court refused the application to amend because the plaintiff/appellant exhibited unreasonable and unexplained delay (approximately 14 years), failed to satisfy the Yamaha Motor test (application not bona fide or the prejudice not compensable and amendments risked changing the suit's character), and the proposed amendments were not plainly trivial; therefore leave to amend was denied and costs of RM2000 awarded.

Citation
AA-B52NCC-11-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Thurgas Industries Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant (respondent): Chandrasegaran a/l Veeryah (trading as Thurgas Agencies)
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 May 2025
Case Number
AA-B52NCC-11-02/2025 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (guaman Sivil) / Appeal Against Refusal to Amend Writ and Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application to amend dismissed; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Delay and Prejudice, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Amendment of Pleadings Delay and Prejudice Setting Aside Default Judgment 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thurgas Industries Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff (appellant)

Chandrasegaran a/l Veeryah (trading as Thurgas Agencies)

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (guaman Sivil) / Appeal Against Refusal to Amend Writ and Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the writ and statement of claim under Order 20 Rule 5(1) Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether the delay in seeking the proposed amendments is inordinate and justifies refusal
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendments would cause prejudice or effectively change the character of the suit

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the application to amend because the plaintiff/appellant exhibited unreasonable and unexplained delay (approximately 14 years), failed to satisfy the Yamaha Motor test (application not bona fide or the prejudice not compensable and amendments risked changing the suit's character), and the proposed amendments were not plainly trivial; therefore leave to amend was denied and costs of RM2000 awarded.

Court Disposition

Application to amend dismissed; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to amend (Lampiran 33) dismissed
  • Costs of RM2000 awarded (against the applicant)