PLAZA PREMIUM LOUNGE MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. v MALAYSIA AIRPORTS (SEPANG) SDN. BHD.

Case Significance

Illustrates the court's reluctance to allow late amendments to pleadings or wide discovery close to a fixed trial date, especially on issues that could have been raised in an earlier amendment, so as not to disrupt trial preparation.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns two interlocutory applications by the defendant in a dispute over the operation of an airport lounge, and it illustrates the court's reluctance to permit late amendments and wide discovery on the eve of trial. The plaintiff, part of a group operating airport lounges, dining areas and related services across many countries and airports, had sued the defendant, the operator of the relevant airport terminals, seeking to restrain the defendant from exercising a right to terminate the plaintiff for an alleged breach of authorised use, so as to preserve the status quo of the premises pending disposal of the main suit. In the course of that litigation the defendant applied to amend its amended defence and counterclaim under Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012, and separately applied for discovery of documents under Order 24.

The court considered both applications together against the stage the proceedings had reached. It noted that discovery may be refused where it would be oppressive to the party from whom it is sought, and that an amendment introducing new issues late in the day may be disallowed. The trial had already been fixed for December 2025 and the parties were preparing pre-trial cause papers; the defendant had previously amended its defence and counterclaim in September 2024 without including the issues now raised. In those circumstances the court considered that the case fell within the categories that prevented it from exercising its discretion in the defendant's favour.

The court dismissed both the amendment application and the discovery application, ordering costs of RM4,000 for each, subject to allocator. The judgment illustrates that a party who seeks to reshape its pleadings or to obtain wide discovery close to a fixed trial date, on issues it could have raised in an earlier amendment, faces a high hurdle, and that the court will guard against last-minute applications that would disrupt trial preparation.