LKM MANAGEMENT SERVICES SDN BHD AU KOK HUEI

LKM MANAGEMENT SERVICES SDN BHD AU KOK HUEI

Magistrate did not err in exercising discretion to allow the amendment: the proposed amendments concerned facts already pleaded (Melvin Loh), were bona fide supported by newly obtained documentary evidence, were filed sufficiently before trial (about seven months) so delay was not inordinate, and any prejudice to the Plaintiff was compensable by costs; therefore the appeal to set aside the amendment was dismissed.

Citation
WA-11ANCvC-150-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: LKM Management Services Sdn Bhd; Respondent/defendant: Au Kok Huei
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 February 2022
Case Number
WA-11ANCvC-150-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Magistrate's Interlocutory Decision / Appeal From Magistrate Order on Pre Trial Amendment of Defence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Order 20 Rule 5 ROC 2012, Pre Trial Case Management, Limitation and Laches, Procedural Delay and Prejudice
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Debt Recovery Amendment of Pleadings Order 20 Rule 5 ROC 2012 Pre Trial Case Management Limitation and Laches Procedural Delay and 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LKM Management Services Sdn Bhd

Appellant/plaintiff

Au Kok Huei

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Magistrate's Interlocutory Decision / Appeal From Magistrate Order on Pre Trial Amendment of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate properly allowed the Defendant to amend his Defence under Order 20 r.5 and O92 r.4 ROC 2012
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments would change the character of the suit
  3. 3 Whether there was inordinate delay or mala fides in making the amendment application

Ratio Decidendi

Magistrate did not err in exercising discretion to allow the amendment: the proposed amendments concerned facts already pleaded (Melvin Loh), were bona fide supported by newly obtained documentary evidence, were filed sufficiently before trial (about seven months) so delay was not inordinate, and any prejudice to the Plaintiff was compensable by costs; therefore the appeal to set aside the amendment was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent subject to allocatur
  • Order of Magistrate dated 12-11-2021 allowing amendment of the Defence is upheld