1. ) TAN SRI DATO' SRI MUHAMMAD SHAFEE BIN MD ABDULLAH 2. ) TANIA SCIVETTI 3. ) LUNAR DOLLARS SDN. BHD. v 1. ) Saerah Binti Saad Lobb 2. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR

Case Significance

Illustrates the application of the settled principles on amendment of pleadings — bona fides, absence of irremediable prejudice, and no change to the character of the suit — allowing clarifying amendments while refusing those that would transform the claim.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application by the first defendant to amend her defence and counterclaim shortly before trial. The underlying dispute arose from a proposed sale and purchase of two leasehold lots at Taman Duta, Kuala Lumpur: the first defendant owned the land, and the plaintiffs were the prospective purchasers, but the transaction did not proceed and the parties were at odds over the cause of the aborted deal. The first defendant's pleaded defence was that no binding agreement had been concluded, as no sale and purchase agreement had been executed. By this application she sought to delete and re-author her existing defence and counterclaim, which her counsel said was for clarity and took the same position without any inconsistency.

The plaintiffs objected strenuously, contending that the amendments deleted judicial admissions, were not made in good faith, sought to introduce a new claim for unlawful interference with the first defendant's proprietary interest, and were unjustifiably delayed. The court applied the settled principles governing amendment of pleadings — that an amendment should be bona fide, should not cause prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs, and should not change the character and nature of the suit.

On a detailed examination of the original and proposed pleadings, the court allowed the amendments to the defence, finding that they did not change its nature and did not delete any judicial admissions, all being incorporated in the amendments. It allowed most of the amended counterclaim but disallowed those additions that would change the nature and substratum of the claim or introduce prayers and declarations not originally sought. The court ordered the amended pleading to be filed and directed costs of RM3,000 to be paid by the first defendant. The judgment illustrates the careful line drawn between clarifying a pleading and impermissibly transforming a claim on the eve of trial.