WA-21IP-1-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

WA-21IP-1-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The drawn and sealed judgment did not fully and accurately reflect the orders actually pronounced; such discrepancies are correctable under Order 20 r.11 (and cognizable under the Court's inherent jurisdiction) therefore the Amendment Application to amend the judgment to accord with the pronouncement is allowed; delay was not inordinate and did not bar relief; costs were denied to both parties.

Citation
WA-21IP-1-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Cheah Yee Chen; Plaintiff: Low Ze Bing; Plaintiff: Chong Yeong Kon; Plaintiff: Leng Chee Yian; Plaintiff: Neuro Development Sdn Bhd; Plaintiff: Insegnante Sdn Bhd; Defendant: 1st Defendant; Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 November 2023
Case Number
WA-21IP-1-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Post Trial Application to Amend Sealed Judgment Under Order 20 R.11 And/or Inherent Jurisdiction (order 92 R.4)
Outcome
Amendment application allowed in part (prayer 1 to amend the judgment); no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Judgment, Slip Rule (clerical Correction), Inherent Jurisdiction, Rectification of Sealed Order, Exemplary Damages, Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Amendment of Judgment Slip Rule (clerical Correction) Inherent Jurisdiction Rectification of Sealed Order Exemplary Damages Interest

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheah Yee Chen

Plaintiff

Low Ze Bing

Plaintiff

Chong Yeong Kon

Plaintiff

Leng Chee Yian

Plaintiff

Neuro Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Insegnante Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

Defendant

2nd Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Post Trial Application to Amend Sealed Judgment Under Order 20 R.11 And/or Inherent Jurisdiction (order 92 R.4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the drawn and sealed judgment correctly reflected what the court actually pronounced
  2. 2 Whether the Court may amend the sealed judgment under Order 20 r.11 to correct clerical slips or omissions
  3. 3 Whether the Court may invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 r.4 to amend the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The drawn and sealed judgment did not fully and accurately reflect the orders actually pronounced; such discrepancies are correctable under Order 20 r.11 (and cognizable under the Court's inherent jurisdiction) therefore the Amendment Application to amend the judgment to accord with the pronouncement is allowed; delay was not inordinate and did not bar relief; costs were denied to both parties.

Court Disposition

Amendment application allowed in part (prayer 1 to amend the judgment); no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Amend the sealed Judgment to reflect the orders actually pronounced by the Court (prayer 1 of the Amendment Application allowed)
  • No order as to costs