Haziq Hakimi Bin Hussin v 1. ) Kerajaan Negeri Johor 2. ) TETO ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the limits of the amendment power under Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012: a late application to amend, unsupported by a reasonable explanation for the delay and apt to change the pleaded version of events, may properly be refused, and an appellate court will not disturb that exercise of discretion absent a clear error.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru is an appeal against a Sessions Court's refusal to allow amendments to a writ and statement of claim in a road-accident damages action. The two appellants, who were the plaintiffs below, had filed applications to amend their writ and amended statement of claim in a suit claiming damages for injuries suffered in a road accident in March 2020, in which the defendants included a state government, a public works department engineer and a construction company. The Sessions Court dismissed the amendment applications, and the appellants appealed. The governing power is the discretion to allow amendments under Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012, which permits a party to amend its pleadings at any stage on such terms as may be just, but which is exercised with an eye to whether the amendment is bona fide, whether it is sought timeously, and whether it would prejudice the opposing party or alter the essential character of the case. The High Court found that the amendment applications had been filed late without a reasonable explanation and that the proposed amendments could change the version of the events pleaded. Concluding that there was no appealable error and that the Sessions Court's decision was not plainly wrong, it dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal of the amendments. Delivered by Nurulhuda Nur'aini binti Mohamad Nor J, the judgment is a useful illustration of the limits of the amendment power under Order 20 rule 5: a late application to amend, unsupported by a reasonable explanation for the delay and apt to change the pleaded version of events, may properly be refused, and an appellate court will not disturb that exercise of discretion absent a clear error. The decision shows the court alert to the risk that a belated amendment may be used to reshape a party's account of how an accident happened, and treating the timing of the application and the absence of a credible explanation for the delay as weighing against allowing it.