Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leave to amend

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2025

Surrealist Communities (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) Potensi Mestika Construction Sdn Bhd 2. ) Lai Chor Kheong 3. ) Lai Tuck Ken

Citation

WA-22NCvC-157-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-157-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for leave to amend was dismissed because it was made at a very late stage (two and a half years after filing and less than one month before trial) without any cogent explanation for the delay; allowing the amendment would prejudice the defendants and disrupt scheduled trials contrary to the case management objectives articulated in Hong Leong Finance v Low Thiam Hoe.
13 Jun 2025

1. ) RHB TRUSTEES BERHAD 2. ) SUNWAY REIT MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 3. ) SUNWAY EDUCATION GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) TROPICANA EDUCATION MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) TROPICANA CORPORATION BHD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-479-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-479-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 114 was dismissed because the proposed amendments and joinder were not bona fide, were filed after inordinate delay (approximately one and a half years), introduced entirely new causes of action and parties thereby changing the character of the suit, were procedurally irregular for not serving proposed defendants, and would cause prejudice to the defendants that could not be adequately addressed by costs under current case management principles.
21 May 2025

U CARE PRODUCTS SDN. BHD. LIM XIAN KUN

Citation

JA-22IP-6-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22IP-6-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the amended paragraphs altered the plaintiff's capacity by asserting exclusive licensee status and introduced a new cause of action without leave contrary to O.20 r.1(3); the amendments were struck out under O.20 r.4 and O.18 r.19 and the suit will continue on the original writ and statement of claim.
12 Aug 2024

Chin Pak Loong GENTING MALAYSIA BHD

Citation

WA-22C-122-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-122-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to amend (Enclosure 251) dismissed because the delay was not adequately and cogently explained, the proposed amendments were within the plaintiff's knowledge and would change the character of the pleaded case, their admission would cause prejudice and further delay (necessitating recall of witnesses and likely altering filed evidence), and justice required refusal; costs awarded in the cause and EOT4 issues struck from the record and barred from being raised by the Defendant at trial.
7 Aug 2024

1. ) mohd zin bin mohd yunus 2. ) khairi anuar bin mohd yunus 3. ) hamidah binti mohd yunus 1. ) mohd zuki bin ibrahim b/s Ib Construction & Trading 2. ) mohamad shahrizal bin dollah 3. ) mohd aziki bin abdullah 4. ) Pentadbir Tanah Jajahan

Citation

DA-A52NCvC-40-09/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

DA-A52NCvC-40-09/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application to amend was dismissed: Third Defendant filed the application very late (220 days after amended defence), failed to provide a reasonable explanation (change of counsel not accepted), the proposed amendment would change the character of the defence by increasing the counterclaim from RM30,000 to RM125,000 and was inconsistent with pleaded issues, it lacked particulars and real prospect of success, and would cause prejudice to plaintiffs not compensable by costs; costs RM500 awarded to plaintiffs.
28 Feb 2024

LEE AH LAN@ LEE KEOK HOOI 1. ) WONG KOON HUNG 2. ) Wong Kien Choong 3. ) MASERA REALTY SDN.BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCC-547-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-547-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to amend the defence was dismissed because the defendants failed to provide a cogent explanation for materially late filing, disobeyed repeated case management directions, did not comply with procedural requirements (including Order 32 r.13), and the proposed amendments would prejudice the plaintiff and threaten fixed trial dates; accordingly leave to amend was refused and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
15 Dec 2023

TING HOCK TIONG 1. ) CHANDRA A/L SURINARAYANAN 2. ) YUEN TUNG ENGINEERING WORKS

Citation

AH-A73KJ-12-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AH-A73KJ-12-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The application to amend was refused because it was filed after the full trial had closed (approximately 22 months after the writ was filed) without any explanation for the delay; such unexplained and excessive delay undermines any claim of bona fides and justifies refusal in the exercise of the court’s discretion, entitling the defendants to costs.
13 Dec 2023

TAN SOW MOOI 1. ) RAINBOW PARADISE BEACH RESORT HOTEL 2. ) CHAMPSURF SDN BHD

Citation

PA-12BNCvC-15-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12BNCvC-15-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court allowed the application because the Rules of Court permit amendment of the MOA and other documents to facilitate determination of the real issues and to correct procedural defects under the overriding objective; the missing pages existed in the served hard copy so re-filing causes no prejudice; the Additional MOA was necessary to address issues arising from the Sessions Court judgment; respondents were not sufficiently prejudiced to warrant an immediate costs award, and costs for this interlocutory application were ordered to be in the cause (RM7,000).
26 Oct 2023

AUSTIN POWDER ASIA PACIFIC INC. TROPICANA CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-138-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-138-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to amend was dismissed because the plaintiff filed it after more than one year from the events relied on, after extensive trial preparations and three case management conferences, and under the governing robust approach to delay the inordinate delay and resulting prejudice warranted refusal and costs.
12 Sept 2023

TAN PEK HAN TJM SDN BHD PIHAK TERKILAN POSCO INTERNATIONAL MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCvC-100-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-100-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to amend was dismissed because it was filed and not disposed before the final case management deadline in breach of explicit court directions, causing undue prejudice and delay; the Court exercised its case management powers under Order 34 to refuse the late application and, in any event, the discretionary test under Order 20 r.5 did not favor allowing a prejudicial three‑year afterthought addition of a counterclaim.