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

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

The court allowed the amendment under the slip rule because the drafted order filed did not accurately reflect what the court had actually decided on 9/3/2022; the original application and hearing related to the Second Defendant only, the amendment is clerical (correcting party identification), does not alter substantive terms or prejudice the defendant, and objections based on delay were unfounded given the respondent's own subsequent filings and the timing of the contested draft order.

Citation
JA-56WS-22-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff/judgment Creditor: Suzie Balung; Plaintiff/judgment Creditor: Muhammad Raja Imran Shah; Defendant/judgment Debtor: S & D Win Sdn Bhd
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 September 2023
Case Number
JA-56WS-22-12/2021 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Enforcement (writ of Seizure and Sale) / Interlocutory Appeal / Application to Amend Perfected Order (slip Rule)
Outcome
Application to amend order dated 9/3/2022 allowed.
Legal Topics
Slip Rule (order 20 R.11), Amendment of Orders, Functus Officio, Committal Proceedings, Court Record/cms Filings
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Slip Rule (order 20 R.11) Amendment of Orders Functus Officio Committal Proceedings Court Record/cms Filings

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suzie Balung

Plaintiff/judgment Creditor

Muhammad Raja Imran Shah

Plaintiff/judgment Creditor

S & D Win Sdn Bhd

Defendant/judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Enforcement (writ of Seizure and Sale) / Interlocutory Appeal / Application to Amend Perfected Order (slip Rule)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may amend a perfected order under the slip rule to correct the identity of the party in the order
  2. 2 Whether the amendment is merely clerical and does not alter substantive rights or prejudice the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the application to amend is time-barred by the one-month rule

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the amendment under the slip rule because the drafted order filed did not accurately reflect what the court had actually decided on 9/3/2022; the original application and hearing related to the Second Defendant only, the amendment is clerical (correcting party identification), does not alter substantive terms or prejudice the defendant, and objections based on delay were unfounded given the respondent's own subsequent filings and the timing of the contested draft order.

Court Disposition

Application to amend order dated 9/3/2022 allowed.

Orders

  • Amendment of the order dated 9/3/2022 permitted in accordance with the proposed amended order exhibited at Annex 26; amendment confined to reflecting that the order was on the application of the Second Defendant and not otherwise varying substantive terms of the order.