MAH SING PROPERTIES SDN BHD SKY ACRES SDN BHD

MAH SING PROPERTIES SDN BHD SKY ACRES SDN BHD

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed amendments would change the character and substance of the original defence, the Defendant failed to provide a cogent and satisfactory explanation for the 21‑month delay (change of solicitors was not an acceptable excuse), the timing indicated a tactical manoeuvre to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JA-12ANCvC-143-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mah Sing Properties Sdn Bhd; Defendant/appellant: Sky Acres Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Case Number
JA-12ANCvC-143-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Amend Defence Under Order 20 R5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (interlocutory)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Delay in Applying to Amend, Tactical Manoeuvre, Summary Judgment, Locus Standi, Liquidated Agreed Damages, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Rules of Court Order 20 R5, Contracts Act 1950 S75
Civil Procedure Contract Law Property Law Amendment of Pleadings Delay in Applying to Amend Tactical Manoeuvre Summary Judgment Locus Standi +4 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mah Sing Properties Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Sky Acres Sdn Bhd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Amend Defence Under Order 20 R5 of the Rules of Court 2012 (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendments would change the substance and character of the original defence
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application to amend was satisfactorily explained
  3. 3 Whether the application to amend was a tactical manoeuvre made in bad faith to resist summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed amendments would change the character and substance of the original defence, the Defendant failed to provide a cogent and satisfactory explanation for the 21‑month delay (change of solicitors was not an acceptable excuse), the timing indicated a tactical manoeuvre to resist summary judgment, and the Sessions Court Judge exercised her discretion lawfully with resulting prejudice to the Plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of MYR1,500 subject to allocatur fees