SHAHDANA JTL ENGINEERING LAWRENCE A/L SANDENASAMY PIHAK KETIGA ARTESIAN BORE SDN BHD

SHAHDANA JTL ENGINEERING LAWRENCE A/L SANDENASAMY PIHAK KETIGA ARTESIAN BORE SDN BHD

The court refused the application to amend the defence because there was undue delay in filing the application, no cogent or reasonable explanation for the delay was provided, the proposed amendments amounted to afterthoughts and were not bona fide, and allowing the amendments would be prejudicial and tactical; accordingly leave to amend was properly refused and costs awarded.

Citation
AA-A52-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Shadana JTL Engineering; Defendant/respondent: Lawrence A/L Sandenasamy; Third Party/appellant: Artesian Bore Sdn Bhd
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 June 2025
Case Number
AA-A52-15-07/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Interlocutory Decision on Amendment Application
Outcome
Application to amend defence refused; costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Delay and Bona Fides, Costs, Prejudice
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Construction Law Amendment of Pleadings Delay and Bona Fides Costs Prejudice

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

Parties

Shadana JTL Engineering

Plaintiff/respondent

Lawrence A/L Sandenasamy

Defendant/respondent

Artesian Bore Sdn Bhd

Third Party/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Interlocutory Decision on Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to amend the defence should be granted under the Rules of Court 2012
  2. 2 Whether undue delay and absence of cogent explanation justify refusal to permit amendment
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendment is bona fide or an afterthought/tactical manoeuvre

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the application to amend the defence because there was undue delay in filing the application, no cogent or reasonable explanation for the delay was provided, the proposed amendments amounted to afterthoughts and were not bona fide, and allowing the amendments would be prejudicial and tactical; accordingly leave to amend was properly refused and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Application to amend defence refused; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • Application by third party to amend defence as per Annexure (Lampiran 26) dismissed
  • Costs of RM2,000 awarded to the respondents