1. ) AWA NEW PARTS SDN BHD 2. ) YIP WAI KEAN v 1. ) WINSTON CHIN WENG FAI 2. ) FONG MIN YI 3. ) KHU WENG SHEN 4. ) NG CHUN KIT 5. ) CARSTO GARAGE SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the liberal approach to amendment of pleadings under Order 20: an amendment arising from the same factual matrix that does not change the nature of the action will be allowed, even late, to decide the real controversy once and for all.

This High Court (Commercial Division) decision, sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, concerns an appeal against a Sessions Court's refusal to allow an amendment to a statement of claim. The appellants had applied in the Sessions Court to amend their statement of claim, but the Sessions Court Judge dismissed the application, taking the view that it was not bona fide because it was filed late after trial dates had been fixed and after the plaintiffs' injunction application had been withdrawn (with damages ordered against them for the wrongful injunction), that it was a tactical manoeuvre to delay proceedings and an abuse of process, and that the plaintiffs should have pleaded all their particulars earlier. On appeal, the High Court applied the settled principles governing amendments under Order 20 of the Rules of Court 2012: an amendment should generally be allowed, however late, if it is made bona fide, if any prejudice to the other side can be compensated in costs, and if it does not change the nature and character of the action, so that the real issues in controversy can be decided once and for all and multiplicity of proceedings avoided. The court found that the proposed amendments arose from the same factual matrix — the alleged duties owed by the defendants to the company and the losses said to flow from their breach — and did not change the nature of the claim, even if they added and particularised new causes of action. It held that the eventual failure of the injunction and the resulting damages did not render the amendment mala fide, and that, the trial having since been vacated with no blame attributable to any party, the amendment should be allowed so the whole dispute could be resolved together. It set aside the Sessions Court's order, allowed the appeal, and permitted the amendment, with costs in the cause. The judgment illustrates the liberal approach to amendments that determine the real controversy without changing the character of the action.