Conlay Construction Sdn Bhd v Putrajaya Leisures & Services Group Sdn Bhd (BA-22NCvC-349-08/2023)

Applications to amend pleadings, whether they concern the original Statement of Claim, Defence, or their amended versions, are a common feature of litigation. Such amendments serve to clarify the real issues in dispute and facilitate the just disposal of proceedings.

The principles governing the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant or refuse leave to amend are well-established. Ultimately, the determination turns on the particular factual matrix of each case and the grounds advanced by the parties. 27/05/2025 14:36:51 BA-22NCvC-349-08/2023 Kand. 60

This is the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 35 dated 25 September, 2024 for leave to further amend its Amended Statement of Claim dated 13 October, 2023.

On 24 March, 2025, this Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 35. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Plaintiff has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on 14 April 2025.

These are the grounds of judgment in respect of Enclosure 35.

The amendments sought by the Plaintiff in Enclosure 35 were as follows: CADANGAN PERNYATAAN TUNTUTAN TERPINDA SEMULA

Plaintif adalah sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan di Malaysia di bawah Akta Syarikat 1965 yang mempunyai alamat perniagaan dan penyampaian di 10th Floor, Wisma Conlay, No. l, Jalan USJ l0ll, 47620 Subang Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

Defendan adalah sebuah syarikat yang diperbadankan di Malaysia di bawah Akta Syarikat 1965 yang mempunyai alamat berdaftar di Perbadanan Putrajaya, Kompleks Perbadanan Putrajaya, Presint 3, 62675 Putrajaya, V/ilayah Persekutuan dan alamat perniagaannya di Taman Ekuestrian Putrajaya, Precint 5, 62200 Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan.

Pada semua masa yang material, Defendan diberikuasa dan/atau diberikan hak untuk membangukan sebidan g tanah yang dipegang di bawah PT 12962 (Plot 5GDE), jalan P5, Precint 5, Wilayah Persekutuan Putrajaya (“Tanah”) yang dimiliki oleh Perbadanan Putrajaya, sebuah entity menurut Akta Perbadanan Putrajaya 1995 yang memegang keseluruhan saham Defendan.

Pada atau sekita Mac 2016, Plaintif telah didekati oleh AT Associates, juru-ukur bahan dan perunding kos binaan (quantity Surveyors and construction cost consultant) Defendan yang memaklumkan niat Defendan untuk membangunkan Tanah tersebut untuk menjadi sebuah Pusat Pameran Antarabangsa Putrajaya (Putrajaya International Exhibiton Centre).

Oleh itu, Plaintif telah menyediakan dan memberikan satu cadangan pembangunan untuk Tanah tersebut yang merangkumi cadangan pembangunan seperti berikut:

satu pusat pameran antarabangsa yang dipanggil sebagai Putrajaya MyExpo (“MyExpo”);

satu hotel;

satu bangunan pejabat berserta besmen tempat letak kereta;

ruang jalan kaki dan Kawasan lapang jalinan hijau. (“Cadangan Pembangunan” tersebut)

Melalui Berdasarkan satu surat niat Defendan kepada Plaintif bertarikh 11.01.2017 kepada Plaintif, Lembaga pengarah Defendan telah secara amnya menerima Cadangan Pembangunan tersebut dan secara prinsip bersetuju untuk mengadakan mesyuarat atau rundingan lanjut untuk menyelesaikan dan/atau memuktamadkan isu teknikal Projek tersebut dan juga perlantikan Plaintif sebagai Kontraktor Turnkey untuk pihak-pihak telah bersetuju bahawa pihak-pihak akan berbincang secara lanjutnya bagi kerja-kerja dan perlantikan Plaintif untuk satu projek Cadangan Pembangunan tersebut yang dikenali sebagai “The Proposed Diplomatic Enclave and Integrated Mixed Development at Jalan P5, Precint 5, Putrajaya” (“Projek” tersebut).

Atas arahan dan/atau permintaan Defendan, yang diberikan semasa mesyuarat atau rundingan lanjut, untuk menyediakan permohonan untuk mendapatkan Kebenaran Merancang untuk sebahagian Projek tersebut, termasuk segala pelan-pelan yang diperlukan, Plaintif bagi pihak Defendan telah melantik pelbagai perunding-perunding yang diperlukan untuk menyediakan permohonan untuk kebenaran Merancang tersebut (“Permohonan KM” tersebut). Perlantikan perunding-perunding bagi pihak Defendan telah dimaklumkan dan diluluskan oleh Defendan.

Namun, yuran perunding-perunding yang dilantik telah ditanggung dan dibayar oleh Plaintif seperti yang dibutirkan di dalam item 1 hingga 16 Lampiran A kepada Pernyataan Tuntutan ini dan butiran perunding-perunding yang dilantik adalah seperti berikut:

Ardhmillenia Sdn. Bhd. untuk menyediakan Laporan

(ii) Design Practice Consultant (DPC) merupakan perunding arkitek bertauliah untk menyediakan lukisan dan lakaran bagi keseluruhan Permohonan KM;

(iii) Jurukur Esa untuk menyediakan ukurTanah tersebut (land survey);

(iv) MITG Group Sdn. Bhd. merupakan perunding jurukur bahan (quantity surveyor consultan) untuk menyediakan anggaran kos bahan yang diperlukan;

Mozaiku Sdn. Bhd. untuk menyediakan model bangunan dalam imej computer reka bentuk 3D (3D design computer image);

(vi) Rundingan Trafik MZK Sdn. Bhd. merupakan perunding untuk meneydiakan “Traffic Impact Assessment”;

(vii) Sam Planners Sdn. Bhd. untuk menyediakan “Town Planning”;

(viii) World Architectural Model untuk menyediakan model projek;

(ix) Juta Arah Dimensi (M) Sdn. Bhd. merupakan jrukur berlesen untuk melaksanakan “survey” sempadan;

Master Testing Sevices Sdn. Bhd. merupakan perunding untuk melaksanakan “Soil Investigation”;

(xi) Progress Drilling Sdn. Bhd. untuk melaksakan “Soil Investigation”.

Plaintif berjaya menyediakan Permohonan KM yang diperlukan di mana Defendan sebagai pemilik dan pemaju Projek tersebut telah meluluskan segala isu teknikal. Pada sekitar Jun 2017, penyerahan awal bagi Permohonan KM tersebut telah dilakukan kepada pihak berkuas ayang relevan untuk mendapatkan Kebenaran Merancang.

Defendan pada mula tindakan ini berhutang kepada Plaintif wang sebanyak RM2,369,209.21 RM2,396,209.21 yang merupakan kos yang telah ditanggung oleh Plaintif atas arahan dan/atau permintaan Konsisten dengan perlantikan Plaintif dan Permohonan KM tersebut, Defendan telah mengarahkan Plaintif untuk menyediakan dan mengadakan satu Majlis Pecah Tanah (Groundbreaking ceremony) dan membayar RM1,000,000.00 sebagai yang merupakan yuran komitmen (commitment fee) yang telah dibayar oleh Plaintif kepada Defendan atas permintaan Defendan.

Pada setiap masa material, Defendan telah meminta dan mengarahkan Plaintif untuk mendapatkan kebenaran dan/atau berhubung dengan pihak berkuasa berkenaan untuk menyediakan dan Seperti yang diarahkan oleh defendan, Plaintif telah berhubungan dengan pihak berkuasa berkenaan dan telah memperolehi segala kelulusan yang diperlukan untuk mengadakan Majlis Pecah Tanah tersebut (Groundbreaking ceremony) yang dilaksanakan dengan berjaya berada pada 26.09.2017 di mana Perdana Menteri Malaysia pada masa itu telah menghadiri Majlis Pecah Tanah tersebut. Atas arahan Defendan, segala kos kos untuk Majlis Pecah Tanah tersebut berjumlah RM2,396,209.21 telah terpaksa ditanggung oleh Plaintif. sebanyak RM2,396,209.21 di mana ia adalah dalam pengetahuan Defendan sendiri. Butir-butir ringkas kos-kos untuk menyediakan dan mengadakan Majlis Pecah Tanah tersebut adalah di dalam pengetahuan Defendan dan adalah sepertimana yang disenaraikan sebagai item No. 17 hingga No. 28 di dalam pada Lampiran A Pernyataan Tuntutan ini.

Secara ringkats, kos Majlis Pecah Tanah yang dibiayai oleh Plaintif adalah seperti berikut:

Smart Road Construction Works telah menyediakan jalan sementara;

(ii) Seong Trading Sdn. Bhd., Hanson quarry Products Sdn. Bhd., Popular Pillar Sdn. Bhd. dan SD Dream World Resources Sdn. Bhd. telah membekalkan “Crusher Run” dan “Premix” untuk jalan sementara yang diperlukan;

(iii) Educed Production Works Sdn. Bhd. untuk mengelola Majlis dan menyediakan pelbagai keperluan termasuk “Main Marquee Tent” seluas 50m x 30m, “VIP Marquee Tent”, seluas 10m x 30m dan khemah-khemah seluas 20m x 20m beserta dengan penghawa dingin yang diperlukan.

Seperti yang diplidkan di atas, Selanjutnya Defendan juga melalui surat bertarikh 14.08.2017 telah meminta Plaintif untuk membayar kepada Defendan jumlah sebanyak RM1,000,000.00 sebagai yuran komitmen (commitment fee) kepada Defendan supaya Plaintif memenuhi terma-terma dalam surat Defnedan bertarikh 11.01.2017. Plaintif telah membayar yuran komitmen tersebut kepada Defendan pada 05.10.2017 melalui menghantarserah satu cek Ambank (M) Berhad bernombor 046556 untuk jumlah RM1,000,000.00 kepada Defendan sepertimana yang telah diminta oleh Defendan.

Plaintif menegaskan bahawa yuran komitmen tersebut telah dibayar untuk mengesahkan niat Plaintif untuk meneruskan dengan Projek tersebut dan bahawa Plaintif akan dilantik sebagai Kontraktor Turnkey untuk Projek tersebut. Plaintif menegaskan bahawa yuran komitmen terseubt adalah berbayar balik kepada Plaintif sekiranya Plaintif tidak dilantik sebagai Kontraktor Turnkey untuk sebarang alasan ataupun apabila Plaintif dilantik sebagai Kontraktor turnkey untuk Projek tersebut.

Selepas Majlis Pecah Tanah tersebut diadakan, Plaintif tidak pernah menerima sebarang arahan dan/atau permintaan daripada Defendan mengenai Projek tersebut. Pada 08.03.2021, iaitu lebih kurang 3 tahun dan 6 bulan selepas Majlis Pecah Tanah tersebut, Plaintif telah menghantar satu surat kepada Defendan untuk menuntut jumlah kos untuk Majlis Pecah Tanah sebanyak RM2,369,209.21 RM2,396,209.21 dan yuran. komitmen sebanyak RM1,000,000.00 (selepas ini dirujuk secara kolektif sebagai “Jumlah Terhutang tersebut”) tetapi Plaintif tidak menerima sebarang maklum balas daripada Defendan.

Plaintif sesungguhnya percaya bahawa walaupun Permohonan KM tersebut boleh diluluskan, pada sekita Mac 2018 Pemrohonan KM tersebut telah ditarik balik oleh Defendan.

Plaintif tidak dilantik sebagai Kontraktor Turnkey untuk Projek tersebut dan oleh itu, yuran komitmen tersebut adalah berbayar balik kepada Plaintif oleh Defendan.

Selanjutnya, kos Permohonan KM dan kos Majlis Pecah Tanah tersebut telah dibiayai Plaintif atas dorongan Defendan bahawa Plaintif akan dilantik sebagai Kontraktor Turnkey untuk Projek tersebut. Oleh itu, segala kos Permohonan KM dan kos Majlis Pecah Tanah tersebut adalah berbayar balik oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif.

Selanjtunya dan/atau secara alternative, Plaintif menegaskan bahawa Defendan telah menikmati dan/atau memperoleh pengkayaan yang tidak adil (unjust enrichment) dengan kerugian pada pihak Plaintif atas sejumlah RM3,396,209.21 yang mana Defendan tiada sebarang hak atau alasan undang-undang untuk menyimpan manfaat atau faedah yang diterima Defendan.

Walaupun Plaintif telah beberapa kali meminta dan menuntut daripada Defendan memulangkan Jumlah Terhutang tersebut sebanyak RM3,369,209.21 RM3,396.209.21 tetapi Defendan masih gagal, enggan dan/atau cuai untuk membayar wang berjumlah RM3,369,209.21 RM3,396.209.21 atau mana-mana bahagian daripadanya kepada Plaintif.

Pada 26.07.2023, Plaintif melalui Peguamcara mereka iaitu Tetuan Ming, Yee & Co. telah menghantar notis-notis tuntutan bertarikh 24.07.2023 kepada Defendan untuk Jumlah Terhutang tersebut sebanyak RM3,369,209.21 RM1,000,000.00 dan RM2,396,209.21 masing-masing.

Akan tetapi pihak Defendan sehingga hari ini masih gagal, enggan dan/atau sengaja tidak membayar atau menjelaskan baki wang yang dituntut atau mana-mana bahagian daripadanya kepada Plaintif.

Oleh yang demikian, Plaintif menuntut:- a. Defendan membayar balik kepada Plaintif yuran komitmen sebanyak RM1,000,000,.00; b. Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun atas yuran komitmen tersebut sebanyak RM1,000,000.00 dari 264.07.2023 atau sebarang tarikh yang ditetapkan Mahkamah Mulia ini hingga ke tarikh penyelesaian penuh; c. Defendan membayar kepada Plaintif kos-kos untuk menyediakan dan memasukkan Permohonan untuk Kebenaran Merancang dan kos-kos untuk menyediakan dan mengadakan Majlis Pecah Tanah sebanyak RM2,396,209.21 236,309.81; d. Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun atas jumlah sebanyak RM2,396,209.21236,309.81 dari 264.07.2023 atau sebarang tarikh yang ditetapkan Mahkamah Mulia ini hingga ke tarikh penyelesaian penuh; c. Defendan membayar kepada Plaintif kos-kos untuk Majls Pecah Tanah RM2,159,899.40; f. Faedah pada kadar 5% setahun atas jumlah sebanyak RM2,159,899.40 dari 24.07.2023 hingga ke tarikh penyelesaian penuh; g.e. Kos tindakan ini; dan h.f. Lain-lain relif yang difikirkan adil dan wajar oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini. Bertarikh pada 23 Ogos 2023 Bertarikh pada 18 Ogos 2023. Bertarikh semula pada haribulan 2024 The Plaintiff’s Submissions in Support of Enclosure 35 [7] The Plaintiff’s application to amend the Amended Statement of Claim was premised on three principal grounds. [8] First, the proposed amendments, argued the Plaintiff, were intended to plead further and more detailed particulars in support of the cause of action in unjust enrichment, based on facts already pleaded. [9] Second, the Plaintiff contended that the reliefs sought arose from the same series of transactions and factual matrix already set out in the existing pleadings. [10] Third, the Plaintiff asserted that the proposed amendments would not alter the nature of the claim, were made bona fide, and would not prejudice the Defendant. [11] In elaboration, the Plaintiff submitted that the amendments, specifically paragraphs [2A] to [2C] and [3A] to [3C], did not represent a radical departure from its original case but merely served to particularise and introduce the element of unjust enrichment. [12] The Plaintiff argued that this was not a case of attempting “a second bite at the cherry”, but rather an effort to explain and elaborate on facts already pleaded. [13] It was further submitted that the essential claim for “a refund of costs incurred by it” remained unchanged. [14] The Plaintiff also emphasised that the present facts and application were distinguishable from authorities where leave to amend had been refused. [15] Additionally, the Plaintiff maintained that the doctrine of res judicata did not arise on the facts of this application. [16] Finally, it was submitted that no prejudice would be occasioned to the Defendant that could not be compensated by an award of costs. [17] The Plaintiff’s need to assert that this was not a case of taking a “second bite at the cherry” and that the doctrine of res judicata has no application will become apparent in the course of this judgment. The Defendant’s Contentions in Opposing Enclosure 35 [18] In opposing the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 35 and in response to the Plaintiff’s submissions, the Defendant raised several contentions which were, expectedly, diametrically opposed to those advanced by the Plaintiff. [19] First, the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff’s present application to re-amend its Amended Statement of Claim was not made bona fide and constituted a second attempt to revive a case that has already been dismissed, amounting to a “second bite at the cherry”. [20] Second, the Defendant argued that the proposed amendments represented a substantial and radical departure from the Plaintiff’s pleaded case as contained in the existing Amended Statement of Claim. [21] Third, the Defendant contended that the present application was a mere tactical manoeuvre designed to circumvent the earlier dismissal of the Plaintiff’s First Re-Amendment Application, and to introduce a new cause of action, namely, unjust enrichment, which had not been previously pleaded. [22] Fourth, the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff’s attempt to amend its pleadings in a piecemeal or instalment manner was improper and contrary to orderly case management. [23] Fifth, the Defendant took the position that the proposed amendments would effectively alter the nature and character of the original suit, thereby transforming it into a different and inconsistent claim. [24] Sixth, the Defendant highlighted that the Plaintiff’s original claim in the Amended Statement of Claim pertained, among others, to costs allegedly incurred for organising and/or preparing a "Groundbreaking Ceremony". However, under the proposed amendments, the Plaintiff now seeks to include a new claim for costs incurred in preparing and submitting an application for planning permission, marking a shift the Defendant characterised as material and inconsistent with the original pleading. [25] Seventh, the Defendant asserted that the proposed amendments would occasion substantial prejudice which cannot be adequately compensated by costs. [26] In support of this contention, the Defendant relied on the following grounds:

That the Defendant was being required to resist yet another re-amendment application, despite the earlier dismissal of the First Re-Amendment Application. The Plaintiff, it was argued, was attempting to present its case in a piecemeal fashion, leading to unnecessary delay and added burden;

That if the proposed amendments were allowed, the entire pre-trial process will need to be reopened. This would entail, inter alia, the exchange of amended pleadings, the preparation of a fresh statement of agreed facts, and the filing of new documents or evidence to address a significantly altered cause of action;

That the Defendant and its solicitors have already expended considerable time and effort in preparing their case based on the pleadings as they currently stand. Notably, prior to the filing of the present application, the Plaintiff’s solicitors had furnished a draft Common Bundle of Documents consisting of 18 volumes and 5,165 pages. These materials were reviewed in detail by the Defendant’s legal team and relevant personnel over a period of two months. If the proposed amendments were permitted, this entire exercise would need to be repeated, causing the Defendant to suffer prejudice that goes beyond mere monetary compensation. The Decision of this Court [27] It ought to be noted, if it is not already obvious, that the Plaintiff had previously filed an application, vide Enclosure 17, to amend its Amended Statement of Claim. That application, filed on 13 March, 2024, was dismissed by this Court by way of an Order dated 26 June, 2024. [28] In dismissing Enclosure 17, this Court held as follows. The ground of delay and the need to provide any reason and/or any cogent reason for the delay in the making an application for an amendment to be made turn of the factual matrix of each case. Having considered the authorities cited and the factual matrix of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the delay occasioned is not one which can be considered as inordinate and cannot be compensated by costs. However, the landmark decision of the Federal Court in the case of Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 AMR 601 (“Dream Property”) gave recognition to Unjust Enrichment as a separate cause of action in Malaysia. In this regard, “the law of contract/tort and the law of unjust enrichment are conceptually distinct”. It should be noted that the provision in Order 20 rule 5(5) permits the addition of a new cause of action – even if limitation has set in (which is not the case here) – provided these causes of actions arose out “of the same facts or substantially the same facts as a cause of action in respect of which relief has already been claimed in the action by the party applying for leave to make the amendment”. Hence, the second ground raised by the Defendant is not an impediment to the present application by the Plaintiff. Be that as it may, following the decision of another decision of the Federal Court in Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Ichi-Ban Plastic (M) Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2018] 3 AMR 121; [2018] 3 CLJ 557; [2018] 3 MLJ 141; [2018] 3 MLRA 1 the position is that a party intending to rely on a cause of action in unjust enrichment must provide material particulars which give rise to unjust enrichment in its pleadings. In view of the fact that there are no material particulars to sustain the Plaintiff’s cause of action in unjust enrichment which have been pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim, this Court is in agreement with the Defendant’s submission that the Plaintiff’s application to re-amend its pleadings is “ineffectual” and ought to be dismissed. The NoA in Enclosure 17 is hereby dismissed with costs. The Plaintiff to pay costs of RM10,000 to the Defendant, subject to allocatur. [29] The Plaintiff did not appeal against the dismissal of Enclosure 17. [30] That background brings us to the present application, Enclosure 35. [31] As with the earlier application, the question of whether Enclosure 35 ought to be allowed must be examined in the context of the case’s specific factual matrix and the applicable legal principles. [32] This Court has considered the arguments advanced by both parties, together with the authorities cited. [33] In Wright Norman & Anor v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [1994] 1 SLR 513, relied upon by the Plaintiff, the Singapore Court of Appeal reiterated the general principle that amendments should be allowed where they would enable the real issues between the parties to be determined, provided such amendments do not cause injustice that cannot be compensated by costs. The Court stated at paragraph [6]: 6 It is trite law that an amendment which would enable the real issues between the parties to be tried should be allowed subject to penalties on costs and adjournment, if necessary, unless the amendment would cause injustice or injury to the opposing party which could not be compensated for by costs or otherwise: see Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700; Tildesley v Harper (1878) 10 Ch D 393. This is so even though the omission was caused by carelessness or the application for amendment was made very late in the day: per Brett MR in Clarapede & Co v Commercial Union Association [1883] 32 WR 262 at 263. [34] The Singapore Court of Appeal further observed as follows: 23 … It is clear that O 20 r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1990 gives a wide discretion to the court to grant leave to amend. In our opinion, at the end of the day, the most important question which the court must ask itself is, are the ends of justice served by allowing the proposed amendment. Pleadings should not be used as a means to punish a party for his errors or the errors of his solicitors. All relevant issues should be investigated, provided the other party will not be prejudiced in a way which cannot be compensated by costs. All relevant circumstances should be considered by the court before it exercises its discretion whether it would allow an amendment. While the time at which an amendment is made is a relevant consideration it is not necessarily decisive. Delay per se does not equal prejudice or injustice. We do not think any rigid rule should or can be laid down on this. … 39 It seems to us that the learned judge in the instant case had erred in exercising his discretion when, in reliance on the passage of Lord Denning MR, he treated delay as being decisive to the question. It is but one factor to be placed on the scale. He did not appear to have given consideration to the other equally, if not more, important factors. … [35] That said, this Court is bound to apply the principles laid down by our own apex courts in Yamaha Motors Co Ltd v Yamaha Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors [1983] CLJ (Rep) 428; [1983] 1 MLJ 213; [1982] 1 MLRA 417 and Hong Leong Finance Bhd v Low Thiam Hoe [2015] 8 CLJ 1; [2016] 1 MLJ 301; [2016] 3 MLRA 81. [36] What distinguishes the present application in Enclosure 35 from other such applications is the fact that a prior application in the form of Enclosure 17 had already been dismissed. [37] It is important to reiterate that Enclosure 17 was not dismissed on grounds of delay. [38] Nor was it dismissed on the basis that it sought to introduce a new cause of action. [39] As noted above, this Court had expressly accepted that: • The delay was not inordinate and could be compensated by costs; • Unjust enrichment is a distinct and recognised cause of action; and • Order 20 rule 5(5) permits the addition of such a cause where it arises from the same factual matrix. [40] However, the fatal flaw in Enclosure 17 was the Plaintiff’s failure to plead material particulars to support the unjust enrichment claim. As held in Tenaga Nasional, this omission rendered the proposed amendment legally unsustainable. [41] Having now “learnt” from the decision in Enclosure 17, the Plaintiff returned with Enclosure 35. [42] This is a textbook case of piecemeal pleading and post-facto repair. [43] While the Plaintiff argued that it merely seeks to particularise its case, this Court finds that the application, taken in its proper context, amounts to a successive attempt to salvage a defective pleading. [44] Having weighed all the relevant factors on the proverbial scale, this Court is of the considered view that the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 35 ought to be dismissed. [45] Accordingly, the Notice of Application in Enclosure 35 is dismissed with costs. The Plaintiff is ordered to pay costs of RM10,000.00, subject to allocatur. Dated: 25 May, 2025 sgd [CHOONG YEOW CHOY] Judicial Commissioner High Court of Malaya Shah Alam Counsel: Wan Zhi Lam with Liaw Ming Kok for the Plaintiff (Messrs. Ming, Yee & Co.) Tengku Nazmi bin Tengku Anuar and Sarvesvari a/p Kumarasamy for the Defendant (Messrs. Azmi & Associates)