RANDY NG KAI SHENG v BEMED (PTJ) SDN. BHD.

wa-22ncc-46-01-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 1 April 2025 • WA-22NCC-46-01/2025 • 16 min read
9 cases cited (0 SG, 9 foreign)

Outcome

Decision [49] For the reasons above, I dismiss the defendant’s application in Enclosure 24 with costs of RM 5,000 subject to allocatur. …………(signed)………….

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (wa-22ncc-46-01-2025). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Order 20 rule 4(2) ROC 2012 allows a court to order an amendment made under rule 1(1) or rule 3(1) - which allows amendments to be made without leave of court before the pleadings are deemed to be closed - to be struck out if the court is satisfied that if an application for leave to make the amendment in question had been made under rule 5 at the date when the amendment was made under rule 1(1) or rule 3(1) leave to make the amendment would have been refused-Order 20 rule 4(2) ROC 2012 reads as follows-‘2) Where the Court hearing an application under this rule is satisfied that if an application for leave to make the amendment in question had been made under rule 5 at the date when the amendment was made under rule 1(1) or rule 3(1) leave to make the amendment or part of the amendment would have been refused, it shall order the amendment or that part to be struck out-“It is a guiding principle of cardinal importance on the question of amendment that, generally speaking, all such amendments ought to be made for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings or of correcting any defect or error in any proceedings.”-Meaning of ‘prejudice’ that cannot be compensated by costs-“Prejudice”, in the context of amendment applications, cannot mean that if the amendment is allowed, the chances of success of the litigation of the affected party will be severely diminished. “Prejudice” simply means that if the amendment is allowed, the party affected will be unable to pursue or defend the suit-typo can be cured by the court under Order 2 rule 1(1) ROC 2012

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (6)

Ang Adila Firm Foo Leong Tan & Chan Firm Foo Wen Cong Counsel Defendant Gan Boon Yi Counsel Defendant Goh Jing-Wen Counsel Plaintiff Kennie Ang Joo Koon Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

BEMED Sdn Bhd Defendant Randy Ng Kai Sheng Plaintiff

Statutes Cited

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (9)

UK (1)
[1958] 1 WLR 1216
MY (8)
[1983] 1 CLJ 191 [1987] 1 MLJ 230 [2000] 1 CLJ 781 [2002] 1 MLRH 490 [2002] 3 CLJ 686 [2002] 4 AMR 4462 [2002] 6 MLJ 134 [2011] 2 CLJ 609

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-46-01-2025)