Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudice and costs

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

NIKATO ENTERPRISE MC UNITED RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (GROUP) SDN. BHD.

Citation

AA-22NCvC-30-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-30-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amendment was allowed because it did not introduce a new cause of action or change the character of the suit, it regularised the defence already ventilated and relied upon during the summary judgment proceedings, it was made bona fide, any prejudice to the plaintiff could be remedied by consequential amendments and costs, and allowing the amendment served the interest of justice to determine the real issues between the parties.
9 Jan 2026

X2 International Sdn Bhd 1. ) Sheng Tai Impression Sdn Bhd 2. ) Dato' Leong Sir Ley 3. ) Tan Yoong Wei

Citation

WA-22IP-59-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-59-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Amendment application dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide a cogent explanation for the delay, the proposed amendments introduce a new, substantively distinct cause of action and recharacterise quantum thereby changing the character of the suit, and the prejudice to defendants arising from late, substantial amendments could not be adequately compensated by costs.
27 Oct 2025

1. ) TECK HUAT (K.L) COMPANY SDN BHD 2. ) SUN FOODS INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED 1. ) OBH TRADING SDN. BHD. 2. ) OOI BENG HUAT FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22IP-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-39-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Leave to re-amend was granted because the application was brought in good faith upon a genuine post‑commencement Assignment Agreement, the proposed amendments did not introduce new facts altering the core causes of action, any prejudice to Defendants was compensable by costs, and the amendments were necessary to place the true ownership and proprietary rights before the Court to determine the real controversy; Yamaha Motor limbs satisfied.
13 Oct 2025

PEMPETISYEN Abc Def PIHAK TERKILAN Xyz PIHAK YANG DINAMAKAN 1. ) WILLFAST MARKETING SDN. BHD. 2. ) Lu Chiew Yit

Citation

BA-33-119-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-33-119-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to amend was dismissed because there was inordinate and unexplained delay, the applicant failed to demonstrate bona fides, the proposed amendments would fundamentally alter the character of the proceedings by introducing grave adultery allegations and a non-party, and the prejudice to the petitioner was substantive and not remediable by costs; the applicant therefore failed the Yamaha and Hong Leong tests.
3 Jul 2025

TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD CHOO LEE CHEN

Citation

BL-B52NCvC-8-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BL-B52NCvC-8-02/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The amendment was allowed because the Defendant established bona fides (document misplaced and recovered), offered a reasonable explanation for delay, the amendment did not alter the character of the suit but supplemented factual pleadings central to the dispute, and the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate irremediable prejudice; any inconvenience is remediable by costs and case management directions.
30 May 2025

ZAKI BIN HAJI HASSAN 1. ) A & A SOLUTIONS 2. ) NURSHARRINI BINTI SHAARI 3. ) ALIFF BIN KHAIRI 4. ) SOLEHA BINTI YAHYA

Citation

PB-B52NCvC-18-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

PB-B52NCvC-18-07/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Application to amend the Statement of Claim was dismissed because it was not shown to be bona fide, it was filed with inordinate delay without reasonable explanation, it sought to introduce documents not placed before the court at trial and would cause prejudice to defendants that could not be compensated by costs; accordingly Lampiran 60 was refused and costs awarded to defendants RM3,000.
18 Sept 2024

SPADE CAPITAL SDN. BHD. 1. ) PARAGRENE LAND BERHAD 2. ) GREGORY AMOS YOON PENG SUM 3. ) YONG PENG YUEN 4. ) WAN NASIR BIN WAN MUSTAFHA 5. ) MOHD HALIM WHY BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

WA-22NCC-90-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-90-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court disallowed the Amended Statement of Claim because the proposed amendments would fundamentally change the character of the suit by curing jurisdictional defects identified in the Defence, were prompted by the Defence (demonstrating lack of bona fides), and would cause prejudice beyond costs; mandatory requirements of the Moneylenders Act 1951 cannot be retrospectively satisfied by amendment, so leave to amend would have been refused under Order 20 Rule 4.
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.
26 Jun 2024

BINTAI GEMILANG PETROLEUM ENGINEERING SDN. BHD MAGNALOGIC SDN. BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-460-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-460-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The amendment was refused because it involved a total replacement of the original defence with one of an inconsistent character (alleging sham and illegality) was not shown to be bona fide, and would cause prejudice to the plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs; therefore the Amendment Application was dismissed.
19 Jun 2024

KOK AH HWOI @ KOK AH HOI 1. ) COLUM AIWAH MCNAMARA 2. ) LEE SUAN CHOO

Citation

BA-22NCvC-111-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-111-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to extend time under Order 20 r.9 and allowed the late filing to effect paragraph 29.2 because the amendment had previously been ordered and the defendants had not objected initially; conversely, the court refused leave to amend paragraphs 13, 14 and 27.1 because the proposed change to the date of execution of the will was a late, material alteration central to the dispute, would prejudice the defendants at trial in a way not compensable by costs, and was therefore properly denied under Order 20 r.5(1).