F-which is titled CONCLUSION ON THE RESPONDENT’S CONDUCT contains a summation of the preceding paragraphs proposed to be added. Again, the complaint of the Applicant is on the lack of candour of the Respondents as to the existence of the Addendum Order. The Applicant then proceeds to make a submission on why damages ought to be ordered against the Respondents. [14] In my view, the amendments substantially pertain to matters which eventually led to leave being granted by the Court of Appeal. The complaint of the Applicant is with regard to the lack of candour during the application for leave at the High Court and at the appeal stage, which is again, in respect of the refusal for leave. The appeal by the Attorney General to the Federal Court was also S/N ksrMjZU3q0w/51EahXshg subsequently dismissed which resulted in leave being granted to the Applicant for substantive judicial review. [15] Now that leave has been granted, all these are considered water under the bridge. We have obviously gone beyond that stage. All that is left is for the court to consider whether the reliefs sought can be granted during the substantive hearing. The ultimate relief sought in the judicial review proceedings was to allow the Applicant to serve the remaining term of imprisonment under house arrest. In this regard, I fail to see the nexus between the alleged lack of candour at the leave stage to the eventual relief sought. [16] I would consider it an injustice to the Respondents if the amendments are allowed, as the Respondents would have to unnecessarily answer to matters which are not issues in the substantive judicial review before this court. This would result in an injustice as stated in Yamaha Motors (supra). [17] The complaint as to the lack of candour on the part of the 3rd Respondent or all the Respondents was not the cause of action brought by the Applicant when the Judicial Review proceedings were commenced. If the amendments are allowed, it would be tantamount to allowing the Applicant to introduce a substantially new cause of action, which is precluded by Yamaha Motors (supra). [18] I will now deal with the additional relief sought to be added. The Applicant is seeking to include the relief of damages. This relief is sought to be included some 12 months after the filing of the Judicial S/N ksrMjZU3q0w/51EahXshg Review application. No explanation was given as to the delay in including the relief for damages. [19] In Hong Leong Finance Berhad v Low Thiam Hoe [2015] MLJU 1165, the Federal Court held, The Courts in Malaysia have consistently held that where there is a delay in making an amendment application, the onus is on the applicant to furnish a reasonable explanation for such a delay. They seem to have considered this as an additional factor to the Yamaha Motor’s rules. … It is to be stated here the requirement that a cogent explanation for such a delay must be furnished when making a late application to amend would be clearly in line with pre-trial case management procedures (introduced in year 2000). The management of cases by the Courts prior to the trial is intended to ensure “just, expeditious and economical disposal” of an action. [See Order 34 rule 4(1) RHC 1980,(now Order 34 rule 1(1), RC 2012) and the Practice Direction No. 2 of 2014 issued by the Chief Judge of High Court in Malaya]. Timely disposal of cases and the limitation of cost are now the primary considerations under the present regime. [20] Apart from the fact that no explanation was given for the delay in applying to amend the Statement to include an award for damages, there is a further reason to disallow the amendment. Although the court is not precluded from making an award for damages in an application for Judicial Review, the Applicant must comply with the provisions of O. 53 rule 5. The relevant provision reads, Damages (O. 53, r. 5) S/N ksrMjZU3q0w/51EahXshg