BORHAN BIN MOHAMAD v MEGABINA TRADING

Case Significance

Illustrates the limited scope of the slip rule and the finality of a consent judgment: an accidental clerical error may be corrected, but a party cannot use the slip rule to alter deliberately agreed terms, and an appellate court will not disturb a refusal to amend absent such an error.

This High Court decision at Temerloh is an appeal against a Sessions Court's refusal to amend a consent judgment. The appellant had obtained, or been party to, a consent judgment (penghakiman persetujuan) recorded in the Sessions Court on 30 March 2022 in a civil suit against the respondent, Megabina Trading. The appellant later applied in the Sessions Court to amend that consent judgment, and the Sessions Court judge dismissed the application. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The narrow question on appeal was whether the consent judgment could be amended under the slip rule, which permits a court to correct clerical mistakes or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission in a judgment or order, but does not allow a party to reopen or vary the substance of terms deliberately agreed and recorded by consent. The High Court examined whether the amendment sought fell within the scope of the slip rule, that is, whether it concerned a genuine accidental error rather than a reconsidered position on the agreed terms. It found that there was no error falling within the slip rule (tiada kekhilafan yang tergolong di dalam rukun kekhilafan), and that the Sessions Court judge's decision to refuse the amendment was regular and disclosed no error that would entitle the High Court to intervene. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal. The judgment is a useful illustration of the limited scope of the slip rule, and of the finality that attaches to a consent judgment: a party cannot use the slip rule to alter terms it deliberately agreed to, and an appellate court will not disturb a first-instance refusal to amend where no accidental error is shown. The court's approach reflects the strong policy in favour of holding parties to bargains they have compromised: a consent judgment embodies an agreement between the parties as much as an adjudication by the court, and it is not to be unpicked through the narrow gateway of the slip rule, which exists only to correct accidental errors of expression, not to permit second thoughts about substance. Absent any such accidental error, the first-instance refusal to amend stood, and the appeal failed.