1. ) I TRADE (HK) LTD 2. ) HARMONY IMPORTS LIMITED 3. ) EVER HAPPY (HONG KONG) LIMITED 4. ) Ravjot Bhasin v 1. ) MOHD ZHAFRI BIN AMINURASHID 2. ) FAHMI BIN ADILAH 3. ) NORMAN BIN MOHD NASIR 4. ) MOHAMAD ASHRAF BIN AHMAD SOHAIMI 5. ) MUHAMMAD SYAFIQ BIN SALLEH 6. ) LAW CHAMBERS OF ZHAFRI AMINURASHID 7. ) XFYRE (M) SDN BHD 8. ) Tan Cheng Hooi 9. ) Nur Juwairiah Binti Mohd Azmi

Case Significance

Illustrates the liberal but principled approach to amendment of pleadings under Yamaha Motor v Yamaha (M), allowing bona fide amendments to determine the real dispute, and the reluctance of courts to decide appeals that have become academic.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application to amend a writ and statement of claim to add new plaintiffs and to amend the pleaded facts. The plaintiffs, including several foreign corporate entities and an individual, had sued a number of defendants, among them individuals sued as partners or former partners of a law firm, the firm itself and a corporate defendant. They applied to add two new plaintiffs and to amend the statement of claim on the facts. The court applied the principles governing amendment of pleadings, drawing on Yamaha Motor Co Ltd v Yamaha (M) Sdn Bhd, under which amendments are generally allowed so that the real questions in controversy may be determined, provided the application is bona fide, will not cause the other party irreparable prejudice that cannot be compensated in costs, and is not a tactical manoeuvre. It considered whether the amendment was made in good faith, whether it would prejudice the second to fifth defendants, and whether it amounted to a tactical manoeuvre. Being satisfied that the principles were met and that the amendment should be applied fairly in determining the real dispute, the court allowed the application to amend the writ and statement of claim. The court further observed, in the course of preparing its grounds, that the full trial had by then been completed and a date fixed for the decision, and that the plaintiffs had discontinued or withdrawn their claim against the second to fifth defendants so that those defendants were no longer parties at the time the post-trial decision would be delivered; consequently any appeal by those defendants would in practice become academic, noting the principle in Tan Sri Musa bin Hj Aman v Tun Datuk Seri Hj Panglima Hj Juhar Hj Mahiruddin that a court should generally refrain from deciding academic matters. The judgment is a useful illustration of the liberal but principled approach to amendment of pleadings and of the reluctance of courts to decide academic appeals.