ORION TOWER SDN BHD SHANGHAI CITY SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN WELTON BUILDER SDN BHD (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN)

ORION TOWER SDN BHD SHANGHAI CITY SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN WELTON BUILDER SDN BHD (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN)

The application to re-amend was allowed because the amendment was bona fide, procedural irregularities (late service and annexure placement) were curable and did not occasion irremediable prejudice, electronic service was valid, the proposed additions arose from substantially the same facts and did not change the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-40-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: ORION TOWER SDN BHD; Defendant / Counterclaimant: SHANGHAI CITY SDN BHD; Defendant (counterclaim): WELTON PROPERTY SDN BHD; Defendant (counterclaim): LING KEE TONG; Defendant (counterclaim): THOMAS LING CHIN YEW
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 June 2022
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-40-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Amended Defence and Amended Counterclaim (civil) / Pre Trial – Hearing of Application to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Amendments to Pleadings, Service of Process, Joinder of Parties, Leave/sanction to Sue Wound Up Company, Costs
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Contract Amendments to Pleadings Service of Process Joinder of Parties Leave/sanction to Sue Wound Up Company +1 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ORION TOWER SDN BHD

Plaintiff

SHANGHAI CITY SDN BHD

Defendant / Counterclaimant

WELTON PROPERTY SDN BHD

Defendant (counterclaim)

LING KEE TONG

Defendant (counterclaim)

THOMAS LING CHIN YEW

Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Amended Defence and Amended Counterclaim (civil) / Pre Trial – Hearing of Application to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant may re-amend its amended defence and amended counterclaim under Order 20 r 5 ROC 2012
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's affidavit in support was served in time (Order 62 r 8 and r 6(1)(cc))
  3. 3 Whether the notice of application was irregular for not annexing the proposed amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The application to re-amend was allowed because the amendment was bona fide, procedural irregularities (late service and annexure placement) were curable and did not occasion irremediable prejudice, electronic service was valid, the proposed additions arose from substantially the same facts and did not change the character of the suit, and any insolvency/sanction issues relating to adding a wound‑up company could be addressed after joinder; costs RM8,000 awarded to plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Defendant's application in Enclosure 48 to re-amend the amended defence and amended counterclaim is allowed
  • Defendant to pay costs of RM8,000 to the Plaintiff