S & D WIN SDN BHD 1. ) SUZIE BALUNG 2. ) MUHAMMAD RAJA IMRAN SHAH

S & D WIN SDN BHD 1. ) SUZIE BALUNG 2. ) MUHAMMAD RAJA IMRAN SHAH

The appeal is allowed because the Amendment Application sought a substantive change (limiting the stay to the 2nd Defendant) rather than a clerical correction; there was no evidence in the court minutes supporting a clerical error, the amendment prejudiced other defendants and was a belated, tactical filing to avoid committal proceedings; therefore O.20 r.11 did not authorize the amendment and the Sessions Court erred in allowing it.

Citation
JA-12A-19-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/2nd Defendant: S & D Win Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent/plaintiff in Original Suit: Suzie Balung; Respondent/plaintiff in Original Suit: Muhammad Raja Imran Shah
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 November 2024
Case Number
JA-12A-19-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court order dated 21.9.2023 reversed
Legal Topics
Slip Rule (o.20 R.11 Roc), Amendment of Orders, Stay of Execution, Winding Up Petition, Committal for Contempt
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Judgment Enforcement Slip Rule (o.20 R.11 Roc) Amendment of Orders Stay of Execution Winding Up Petition +1 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S & D Win Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant/2nd Defendant

Suzie Balung

Respondent/plaintiff in Original Suit

Muhammad Raja Imran Shah

Respondent/plaintiff in Original Suit

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amendment Application could be decided under the slip rule (O.20 r.11 ROC)
  2. 2 Whether the Sessions Court erred in allowing amendment of a perfected order without clerical mistake or court minutes support
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendment changed the substantive effect of the order and prejudiced other defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the Amendment Application sought a substantive change (limiting the stay to the 2nd Defendant) rather than a clerical correction; there was no evidence in the court minutes supporting a clerical error, the amendment prejudiced other defendants and was a belated, tactical filing to avoid committal proceedings; therefore O.20 r.11 did not authorize the amendment and the Sessions Court erred in allowing it.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court order dated 21.9.2023 reversed

Orders

  • The Amendment Application filed by the Plaintiffs is dismissed
  • The Sessions Court Order dated 21.9.2023 is set aside and the Order dated 9.3.2022 is restored