ADVANCED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) v WRP ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates that leave to amend a defence will be refused where the proposed amendment is a tactical manoeuvre inconsistent with the pleaded case and, on balance, would prejudice the opposing party.

This High Court decision concerns an application by a defendant for leave to amend its defence late in the proceedings, and the principles governing such amendments. The plaintiff, a company in liquidation formerly in the business of manufacturing and marketing gloves, had entered into a series of Equipment Hiring Agreements to hire the defendant's glove production lines for use at its factory, at a monthly rental per production line. The defendant sought leave to amend its defence by adding a new paragraph pleading that purported termination letters issued to the plaintiff had not validly terminated the agreements — relying in part on the subsequent renewal of certain production lines — and that the purported terminations were invalid or a sham. The governing principles allow amendments to be made for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy, provided they are not made in bad faith or as a tactical manoeuvre and do not cause the other side incurable prejudice. The court examined whether the proposed amendment was consistent with the defendant's pleaded case, whether it was a tactical manoeuvre, and whether allowing it would prejudice the plaintiff. It found the proposed amendment to be a tactical manoeuvre that was inconsistent with the defence as already pleaded, and that, although the plaintiff would have time to amend its reply and there would be no delay to the trial, the balance on the question of prejudice nonetheless tipped in the plaintiff's favour in the particular circumstances. Accordingly, the court dismissed the defendant's application with costs of RM3,000.00, subject to allocatur. The judgment illustrates that leave to amend a pleading will be refused where the amendment is a tactical manoeuvre inconsistent with the existing defence and would prejudice the opposing party. The court's approach reflects that the discretion to allow late amendments is not exercised mechanically, and that a proposed plea which cuts across a party's own pleaded position may be seen as an afterthought designed to reshape the case rather than to determine the real controversy.