Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Amendment of defence

  • 5 Feb 2026

    OREZON ENGINEERING SDN BHD RADICARE (M) SDN BHD

    Citation
    WA-22NCC-88-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22NCC-88-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Leave to file the further affidavit was refused because the defendant failed to explain the delay adequately, the documents were in its possession and could have been produced earlier, they were not shown to be necessary or decisive for defeating summary judgment, and admitting them would cause prejudice and undermine case management; change of solicitors does not justify reopening the evidential record.

  • 9 Jul 2024

    LOW HOCK JOO CHEAH KIAN GIAP

    Citation
    BA-12ANCvC-4-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BA-12ANCvC-4-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court held that the claims made by the appellant against the respondent constituted joinder of parties rather than a counterclaim properly brought under Order 15 r3 because the reliefs sought were not sufficiently connected to the principal claim; therefore leave of court was required under Order 15 r4 and absent such leave the inclusion was procedurally improper. The Sessions Court's decision to allow the respondent's application to strike out the counterclaim was correct and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

  • 26 Oct 2021

    1. TAN SENG CHUAN 2. TAN CHOON HUAT 4 SEGI SDN BHD

    Citation
    BL-22NCvC-6-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    BL-22NCvC-6-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The application for a stay was dismissed because the defendant's conduct (late change of solicitors and late filing to amend the defence/insert a counterclaim close to the trial date), together with the prejudice to plaintiffs who were trial-ready, outweighed the reasons for suspending the trial; an appeal does not automatically stay proceedings and the court exercised its case management discretion to refuse the stay and proceed to trial, awarding costs to the plaintiffs.

  • 18 Sept 2020

    Halim Bin Saad Chan Yok Peng

    Citation
    W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2277-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    IM
    Case number
    W-02(IM)(NCVC)-2277-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Order 42 r.13 could not be used to set aside an inter partes summary judgment obtained after hearing on the merits; the High Court was functus officio and the defendant's late change of case, after admitting liability and failing to respond to demands, amounted to afterthoughts that did not amount to nullity or equitable fraud; the application was barred by res judicata and properly dismissed; appeal to Court of Appeal was the correct remedy for any fresh evidence.