RIVIERA BAY RESORT & CONDO MANAGEMENT SDN BHD V. SRI RIMBA MENTARI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

RIVIERA BAY RESORT & CONDO MANAGEMENT SDN BHD V. SRI RIMBA MENTARI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

The sessions court properly refused leave to amend because the applicant's unexplained inordinate delay of approximately two and a half years and the prejudice to the respondent (necessitating reopening the trial and giving the applicant a second bite) justified the exercise of judicial discretion to dismiss the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RIVIERA BAY RESORT & CONDO MANAGEMENT SDN BHD V. SRI RIMBA MENTARI DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
Parties
Appellant Defendant: Riviera Bay Resort & Condo Management Sdn Bhd; Respondent Plaintiff: Sri Rimba Mentari Development Sdn Bhd
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Leave to Amend Pleadings, Delay and Prejudice, Order 15 Rule 1(1)
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Subordinate Courts Practice Leave to Amend Pleadings Delay and Prejudice Order 15 Rule 1(1)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riviera Bay Resort & Condo Management Sdn Bhd

Appellant Defendant

Sri Rimba Mentari Development Sdn Bhd

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sessions court correctly exercised its discretion to refuse leave to amend under O.15 r.1(1) of the Subordinate Courts Rules 1980
  2. 2 Whether the unexplained delay of two and a half years and resultant prejudice to the respondent justified refusal to allow the amendment
  3. 3 Whether allowing the amendment would require reopening the trial and give the applicant a second bite

Ratio Decidendi

The sessions court properly refused leave to amend because the applicant's unexplained inordinate delay of approximately two and a half years and the prejudice to the respondent (necessitating reopening the trial and giving the applicant a second bite) justified the exercise of judicial discretion to dismiss the amendment application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs