VICTOR GOH v LOW WEE FOOK
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
A straightforward application of Order 20 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012: a party may amend a pleading once without leave before the close of pleadings, and such an early-stage amendment will not be disturbed on appeal absent cogent grounds.
This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an interlocutory civil-procedure appeal about the amendment of a statement of claim without leave. In the underlying Sessions Court action the respondent had amended his statement of claim, and the appellant applied to disallow that amendment; the Sessions Court struck off the appellant's application and allowed the amended statement of claim. The appellant appealed to the High Court but failed to file the directed written submissions and did not attend the scheduled hearing. The court confined itself to the substantive question arising from the Sessions Court's decision, namely the application of Order 20 rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, which permit a party to amend a pleading once without leave at any time before the pleadings are deemed to be closed. Reviewing the sequence of pleadings, the court found that the amended statement of claim had been filed before the close of pleadings under Order 18 rule 20, so the amendment was regular and made at an early stage of the proceedings. The court agreed entirely with the Sessions Court judge's exercise of discretion, both in her handling of a contentious exchange between counsel, which had digressed into a dispute over whether service of the application by email had been consented to, and in her assessment of the propriety of the amendment. It rejected the appellant's argument that the amendment was a tactical response to a separate striking-out application, noting that the pending striking out concerned a different pleading, and observed that even on its merits an amendment at such an early stage would ordinarily have been allowed. Finding no cogent grounds to interfere, the court dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000. The judgment is a straightforward application of the right to amend a pleading once without leave before the close of pleadings.
What decision was being appealed?
The appeal was against the Sessions Court's decision striking off the appellant's application to disallow an amendment and allowing the respondent's amended statement of claim, which had been amended without leave under Order 20 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012.
Why was the amendment held to be regular?
Because it was filed before the pleadings were deemed closed under Order 18 rule 20, so the respondent was entitled to amend once without leave, and the amendment was made at an early stage of the proceedings.
What was the outcome of the appeal?
The court found no cogent grounds to interfere, agreed with the Sessions Court judge's exercise of discretion, and dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000; the appellant had also failed to file submissions or attend the hearing.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (ba-12ancvc-35-06-2025)