P. THIAGARAJAN A/L PAVADAI v 1. ) PASUPATHY A/L GOPALSAMY (BERDAGANG SEBAGAI THISAIGAL TV) 2. ) SENGGUTUAN A/L VEERAN

Case Significance

Illustrates the case-by-case scrutiny of late pleading amendments under Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 in a defamation action, the court permitting non-prejudicial corrections while refusing amendments to the substance of the alleged defamatory words as a late-stage abuse of process.

This High Court decision concerns an application to amend a writ and statement of claim in a defamation suit, brought late in the proceedings, and it illustrates the balance between correcting genuine errors and preventing an abuse of process. The plaintiff sought a range of amendments to his pleading over a broadcast alleged to be defamatory, including adding the first defendant's father's name to complete his name as per his identity card, refining the description of the business he traded under, correcting the spelling of a Tamil caste name for consistency with an association's registration, correcting a typographical error, adding the word "not" to the English translation of the alleged defamatory statement, and including Tamil and Malay transcripts of the broadcast as annexures. Applying Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court 2012 and the principle that amendments are allowed to determine the real questions in controversy but not where they cause incurable prejudice or amount to a tactical manoeuvre or abuse of process, the court examined each proposed amendment separately. It allowed the corrections that caused no prejudice and worked no substantive change — completing the first defendant's name and identity-card details and the trading description, correcting "case" to "caste", and renumbering a duplicated paragraph — because the first defendant had always known the claim was against him and had defended it. It dismissed the amendments that went to the substance of the alleged defamatory words or that came too late, in particular adding "not" to the translation of the impugned statement, the inclusion of the Tamil and Malay transcripts, and the regularisation of the caste spelling, holding that at that late stage those amounted to an abuse of process. The court accordingly allowed the application in part, with each party to bear its own costs. The judgment illustrates the case-by-case scrutiny of late pleading amendments in a defamation action.