DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB BIN TUN HJ ABD RAZAK v 1. ) Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Bin Mohd Salleh 2. ) KOMISIONER JENERAL PENJARA 3. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 4. ) LEMBAGA PENGAMPUNAN BAGI WILAYAH-WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR, LABUAN DAN PUTRAJAYA 5. ) MENTERI DI JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI (UNDANG-UNDANG DAN REFORMASI INSTITUSI) 6. ) KETUA PENGARAH BAHAGIAN HAL EHWAL UNDANG-UNDANG DI JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI 7. ) KERAJAAN MALAYSIA PIHAK KETIGA Dato' Seri Dr. Ahmad Samsuri Bin Mokhtar

Case Significance

Illustrates the limits on amending an Order 53 judicial-review statement: introducing a claim for damages amounts to adding a new cause of action and is barred by the settled principles governing amendment.

This High Court decision in the Special Powers Division at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application in ongoing judicial-review proceedings for leave to amend the applicant's Order 53 statement and to file a further affidavit verifying facts. The applicant had earlier obtained leave to commence judicial review, and by a notice of application sought to amend the Order 53 statement filed at the outset and to introduce a further affidavit. The court examined whether the proposed amendments went beyond merely updating the statement to reflect developments since the filing of the judicial-review application. The decisive point was the character of one of the proposed amendments: the applicant sought to include a claim for damages. The court analysed the provisions governing a claim for damages in judicial-review proceedings, under which such a claim must be supported by particulars pleaded in the statement, and reasoned that a claim for damages is a cause of action in itself. It followed that introducing a claim for damages by amendment would have the effect of adding a new cause of action, which is contrary to the settled principles governing amendment that preclude adding a new cause of action. The court also found that the amendments went beyond an exercise to update or kemaskini (bring up to date) the statement, and instead sought to draw fresh allegations from facts that had been superseded by the grant of leave, so that allowing them would prejudice the respondents; the factual developments were in any event covered by affidavits already admitted. Not being persuaded that the proposed amendments should be allowed, the court dismissed the application. The judgment is a useful illustration of the limits on amending an Order 53 statement, particularly the bar on introducing a damages claim as a new cause of action. The decision confirms that the amendment machinery cannot be used to introduce a fresh, self-standing claim, such as a claim for damages, into judicial-review proceedings after leave has already been granted, where doing so would prejudice the respondents.