LOW WEE HENG 1. ) low wee houng 2. ) LEE SEE

LOW WEE HENG 1. ) low wee houng 2. ) LEE SEE

The court held the errors in the counterclaim paragraph and the May 6, 2020 order were clerical misnomers susceptible to correction under Order 20 r 5 and the slip rule (Order 20 r 11) because the amendments merely corrected party names without changing the substantive judgment or cause of action; delay did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-436-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Low Wee Heng; 1st Defendant: Low Wee Houng; 2nd Defendant: Lee See
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-436-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (probate/estate/trusts) Counterclaim and Applications to Amend Pleadings and Order / Application to Amend Counterclaim Paragraph and Correct Court Order; Judgment on Amendment Applications
Outcome
Applications Encl 170 and Encl 173 allowed; amendments permitted to correct clerical misnomers; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Slip Rule (clerical Error), Res Judicata, Estoppel, Clerical/typographical Correction, Executors' Duties
Civil Procedure Probate and Estates Trusts Equity Amendment of Pleadings Slip Rule (clerical Error) Res Judicata Estoppel +2 more

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 Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Low Wee Heng

Plaintiff

Low Wee Houng

1st Defendant

Lee See

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (probate/estate/trusts) Counterclaim and Applications to Amend Pleadings and Order / Application to Amend Counterclaim Paragraph and Correct Court Order; Judgment on Amendment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendments to the counterclaim and court order correct a clerical misnomer and are permissible under Order 20 r 5 and Order 20 r 11 ROC 2012
  2. 2 Whether the slip rule (O 20 r 11) permits correction after judgment where there is no change to substantive rights
  3. 3 Whether the amendments amount to altering the substantive judgment engaging res judicata or estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the errors in the counterclaim paragraph and the May 6, 2020 order were clerical misnomers susceptible to correction under Order 20 r 5 and the slip rule (Order 20 r 11) because the amendments merely corrected party names without changing the substantive judgment or cause of action; delay did not cause irremediable prejudice and amendments were allowed.

Court Disposition

Applications Encl 170 and Encl 173 allowed; amendments permitted to correct clerical misnomers; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Leave granted to amend Paragraph 56(i) of the 2nd Defendant's Counterclaim as per proposed amended statement
  • Leave granted to amend the Order of Court dated 6 May 2020 as per proposed Amended Order of Court