Bukit Kiara Properties Services Sdn Bhd v Gunalan & Associates PIHAK KETIGA VERVE SUITS MONT' KIARA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (VSMKMC)

Case Significance

Illustrates how a late amendment application is scrutinised under Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012, and the refusal of an amendment that lacks a reasonable explanation for delay and operates as a tactical manoeuvre on the eve of trial.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, delivered by Eddie Yeo Soon Chye JC, concerns a plaintiff's application under Order 20 rule 5 (and Order 92 rule 4) of the Rules of Court 2012 for leave to amend its writ and statement of claim dated 2 March 2020. The plaintiff, Bukit Kiara Properties Services Sdn Bhd, had sued Gunalan & Associates — an audit firm sued as a firm — with VERVE Suites Mont' Kiara Management Corporation joined as a third party. The proposed amendments were said to be intended to reflect the current name and status of the defendant firm, the plaintiff contending that the amendments were made bona fide, did not alter the character of the action into a different and inconsistent one, and would cause no prejudice that could not be compensated by costs, since company searches showed no change in the firm's Audit Firm Number and only a change in the firm's name.

The Court examined the application through the lens of a modern case-management framework in which the court acts as an active manager of proceedings. The decisive questions were whether the application was made with inordinate delay, whether a reasonable explanation for the delay had been provided, and whether the amendment was in truth a tactical manoeuvre. The Court found that there was no cogent and reasonable explanation in the plaintiff's supporting affidavit or grounds as to why the amendment was required only on 14 April 2025, shortly before the trial was due to commence on 17 March 2025, and concluded that the application was a tactical manoeuvre to derail the commencement of the trial. It held that the plaintiff had failed to meet the threshold in Hong Leong Finance Bhd, particularly given that the amendment was sought more than three years after the relevant company search.

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's application to amend the writ and statement of claim, with costs of RM5,000. The judgment is a useful illustration of how a late amendment application is scrutinised under Order 20 rule 5 within the modern litigation framework, and of the court's readiness to refuse an amendment that lacks a reasonable explanation for delay and operates as a tactical manoeuvre on the eve of trial.