Looi Kam Yong Chambers of Firdaus

Looi Kam Yong Chambers of Firdaus

The High Court held the Learned Magistrate was not plainly wrong and correctly dismissed the amendment application: the proposed amendments were not bona fide, lacked supporting documents, changed the character of the Defence and Counterclaim and would cause prejudice not compensable by costs, and the unexplained delay of approximately 1 year 3 months was inexcusable; therefore the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
WA-11ANCvC-31-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Looi Kam Yong; Respondent/plaintiff: Chambers of Firdaus
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 April 2025
Case Number
WA-11ANCvC-31-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appellate Review of Magistrate's Dismissal of Amendment Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Delay and Prejudice, Bona Fide Requirement, Order 20 Rule 5 ROC, Order 92 Rule 4 ROC, Appellate Intervention Test
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Solicitor Client Relationship Amendment of Pleadings Delay and Prejudice Bona Fide Requirement Order 20 Rule 5 ROC +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Looi Kam Yong

Appellant/defendant

Chambers of Firdaus

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appellate Review of Magistrate's Dismissal of Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to amend Defence and Counterclaim should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the delay and lack of cogent justification preclude amendment
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendments change the character of the defence causing irreparable prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Learned Magistrate was not plainly wrong and correctly dismissed the amendment application: the proposed amendments were not bona fide, lacked supporting documents, changed the character of the Defence and Counterclaim and would cause prejudice not compensable by costs, and the unexplained delay of approximately 1 year 3 months was inexcusable; therefore the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Respondent