KRS TRAVEL SDN BHD v 1. ) LOFTY CREST LIMITED (telah dibubarkan) 2. ) YANG MULIA RAJA MOHD AZMI BIN RAJA RAZALI 3. ) ABDUL NASSER BIN ABU KASSIM

Case Significance

Illustrates the limits on amending pleadings under Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 within the modern case-management framework, and the difficulty of curing by late amendment the commencement of proceedings against a company already dissolved.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Rozi binti Bainon JC, concerns a plaintiff's application under Aturan 20 kaedah 5 dan Aturan 92 kaedah 4 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 20 rule 5 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012) for leave to amend its writ and statement of claim. The plaintiff, a travel company, had commenced its action by a writ dated 26 December 2023 against a foreign company as first defendant and two individuals as second and third defendants. The stated reason for the proposed amendment was that the plaintiff had only learned on 3 September 2024 of the dissolution of the first defendant — meaning the claim had been filed against a company that had already been dissolved — and it sought to amend after reading the defendants' affidavit.

The Court examined the amendment application against the principles governing leave to amend, informed by the modern regime of civil procedure under the Rules of Court 2012, which emphasises robust pre-trial case management and the just, expeditious and economical disposal of actions. Under that philosophy, litigants and their counsel must put their house in order before trial and frame their case properly, and the court will scrutinise a late amendment — particularly one that seeks to address a fundamental defect such as suing a dissolved entity — for whether it can fairly and properly be permitted at the stage reached.

Applying those principles, the Court concluded that the amendment could not be allowed and dismissed the plaintiff's application to amend the writ and statement of claim. The judgment is a useful illustration of the limits on amending pleadings under Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 within the modern case-management framework, and of the difficulties confronting a plaintiff who seeks to cure, by late amendment, the consequence of having commenced proceedings against a company that had already been dissolved.