Dunford Corporation Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Sac Eng & Const (M) Sdn Bhd (WA-B52NCvC-224-05/2023)

Content

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN DI KUAL LUMPUR DALAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA GUAMAN NO:WA-B52NCvC-224-05/2023 ANTARA DUNFORD CORPORATION SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 199001013881/205451-T) …PLAINTIF

Lampiran

Lampiran 15 iaitu Permohonan Plaintif bagi mendapatkan semula arahan-arahan bagi Penghakiman Terus. - Peguam cara Defendan Pertama telah memaklumkan ke Mahkamah bahawa Defendan Pertama masih ingin meminda Pernyataan Pembelaan Defendan Pertama. - Mahkamah telah mengarahkan Peguam cara Defendan Pertama untuk memfailkan Notis Permohonan Pindaan dan Permohonan di Lampiran 15 ditangguhkan sementara menunggu keputusan permohonan pindaan Pernyataan Pembelaan oleh Defendan Pertama. 18.09.2023 Peguam cara Defendan Pertama telah memfailkan Notis Permohonan di Lampiran 18 dan menyerahkan Notis Permohonan tersebut dan Afidavit Sokongan kepada Plaintif. [30] Mahkamah juga merujuk kepada perbandingan pindaan-pindaan dalam pernyataan pembelaan asal dan cadangan pernyataan pembelaan terpinda sebagaimana berikut: a) Mengestrak, mengeluarkan dan mengangkut pasir dan kerikil dari Lot 1211 dan Lot 41645 iaitu Hartanah milik Plaintif Pembelaan Asal: Defendan Pertama mengakui bahawa Defendan Pertama telah diberikan kebenaran oleh Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga untuk meneruskan aktiviti mengekstrak, mengeluarkan dan mengangkut pasir dan kerikil sebagaisub-kon di tapak Lot 1211danLot41645(milikPlaintif) dan hanya sekitar Disember 2020,Defendan Pertama mengetahui bahawaLot 1211danLot41645merupakan hartanahmilik Plaintif. [Rujuk Para 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 dan 3.4 dan 3.5] Cadangan Pindaan Pembelaan: a) Defendan Pertama menafikan bahawa Defendan Pertamatelah melakukan aktiviti mengekstrak, mengeluarkan dan mengangkut pasir dan kerikil dariLot 1211danLot 41645 sebagaiSub-Kon danhanya diberikan kebenaran oleh Defendan Kedua dan Ketiga untuk melakukan aktiviti mengekstrak, mengeluarkan dan mengangkut pasir oleh Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga bagi Lot yang dikenali sebagai Lot 2237. b) Defendan Pertama menuduh pada Disember 2020, Plaintif mendapati bahawa kerja-kerja mengekstrak pasir dan kerikil di atas Lot 1211 dan Lot 41645 telah pun dilakukan oleh Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga. Defendan Pertama menafikan penglibatan Defendan Pertama atas lot-lot milik Plaintif. [Rujuk Para : 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 dan3.7] b) Kewujudan Lot 2237 Pembelaan Asal: Pembelaan asal tidak memplidkan butiran dan kewujudan Lot 2237 ini. Defendan Pertama juga tidak pernah memplidkan bahawa Defendan Pertama telah melakukan aktiviti mengekstrak, mengeluarkan dan mengangkut pasir dan kerikil dari Lot 2237 tersebut. Cadangan Pindaan Pembelaan: Defendan Pertama menuduh bahawa Defendan Pertamahanya diberikan kebenaran untuk melakukan aktiviti mengestrak, mengeluarkan dan mengangkut pasir dan kerikil sebagai sub-Kon daripada Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga di atas Lot 2237 . [Rujuk Para : 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 dan 3.9] c) Surat Perjanjian dan Aku janji bertarikh 07.12.2020 Pembelaan Asal: Defendan Pertama mengakui bahawa Defendan-Defendantelah mengadakan mesyuarat sebelum menandatangani Surat Perjanjian dan Aku Janji dan Surat Jaminan bertarikh 07.12.2020 tersebut dan terdapatnya persefahaman antara Defendan-Defendan. [Rujuk Para 4.1] Cadangan Pindaan Pembelaan: Defendan Pertama menuduh bahawa tiada mesyuarat yang telah dilakukan sebelum Defendan Pertama menandatangani Surat Perjanjian dan Aku janji bertarikh 07.12.2020 tersebut. [Rujuk Para 4.1] d) Pengetahuan dan Pemahaman terhadap Surat Perjanjian dan Aku janji bertarikh 07.12.2020 Pembelaan Asal: a) Defendan Pertama mengakui bahawa Defendan Pertama melalui perbincangan antara Defendan-Defendan telah mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa Defendan Pertama akan membayar hutang/tunggakan Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga di mana Defendan Pertama diberitahu seawal-awal mengenai butiranPlaintif sebagai pemilik tanah tersebut. b) Defendan telah meneliti Surat Perjanjian dan Aku janji tersebut sebelum menandatangani Surat Perjanjian dan Aku janji tersebut. [Rujuk Para 4.2 dan 4.5] Cadangan Pindaan Pembelaan: Defendan Pertama menafikan bahawa Defendan Pertama mempunyai pengetahuan dan/atau pemahaman terhadapisi kandungan Surat Perjanjiandan Aku janji bertarikh 07.12.2020 tersebut kerana Defendan Pertama merupakan seorang berpelajaran sehinggan tingkatan 2, dan tidak faham bahasa Inggeris dan menuduh bahawa Defendan Pertama tidak dibekalkan dengan Salinan Surat Perjanjian Aku janji bertarikh 07.12.2020 tersebut dan hanya diberikan Surat Perjanjian dan Aku janji tersebut pada 25.05.2023. [Rujuk Para: 4.2, 4.3, dan 4.4] e) Perkara yang dipersetujui oleh Defenden-Defendan berdasarkan mesyuarat/perbincangan tersebut Pembelaan Asal: Defendan Pertama mengakui bahawa terdapat perbincangan antara Defendan-Defendan dan mereka bersetuju bahawa Defendan Pertamaakan bekerjasama untuk membayar RM 402,276.06 untuk kerja-kerja yang dilaksanakan oleh Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga sebelum kehadiran Defendan Pertama di atas Lot 1211 dan Lot 41645 tersebut. Cadangan Pindaan Pembelaan: a) Defendan Pertama mengakui akan membuat pembayaran RM 402,276.06 tersebut dan menegaskan bahawa Defendan Pertama hanya akan membuat pembayaran tersebut setakat Defendan Pertama beroperasi di tapak Lot 2237 tersebut. [Rujuk Para : 4.5] b) Defendan Pertamajuga mengakui bahawa terdapat persefahaman antara Defendan-Defendan bahawa Defendan Pertama akan membuat pembayaran kepada Plaintif setakat Defendan Pertama masih bekerja di atas Lot 1211 dan Lot 41645. [Rujuk Para4.3dan4.4] f) Penambahan Pembelaan berunsurkan terdesak dan/atau tertekan untuk menandatangani Surat Perjanjian dan Aku janji tersebut Pembelaan Asal Tuduhan dan Pembelaan ini tidak penah diplidkan dimana-mana di dalam Penyataan Pembelaan Defendan yang asal. Cadangan Pindaan Pembelaan: Defendan Pertama menuduh Defendan Pertama terdesak dan/atau tertekan untuk menandatangani Surat Perjanjian dan Aku janji bagi membayar jumlah tersebut kerana diugutoleh Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga yang mana ini akan mengakibatkan kerugian yang besar kepada Defendan Pertama, dan Surat Perjanjian Aku janji ini telah terbatal kerana Defendan Pertama menandatanganinya dalam keadaan terdesak. [Rujuk Para: 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 dan 7.3] g) Kegagalan untuk memplidkan Surat Jaminan bertarikh 07.12.2020 Pembelaan Asal: Tiada di mana-mana di dalam Pernyataan Pembelaan Asal yangtelah diplidkanoleh Defendan Pertama berhubung tujuan Surat Jaminan ini. Cadangan Pindaan Pembelaan: Defendan Pertama menuduh bahawa berdasarkan Surat Jaminan tersebut Plaintif mempunyai pengetahuan bahawa Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga yang perlu membayar tunggakan yang dipohon oleh Plaintif kini. [Rujuk Para 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13 dan 4.14] h) PembayaranRM 40,000.00 Pembelaan Asal Defendan Pertama mengakui bahawa pembayaran sebanyak RM 40,000.00 merupakan bayaran bagi bulan-bulan Defendan Pertama meneruskan kerja-kerja di Lot 1211 dan Lot 41645. [Rujuk Para 4.8, 4.9, 6.1 dan 6.2] Cadangan Pindaan Pembelaan: Defendan Pertama menukar pembelaan bahawa bayaran RM40,000.00 tersebut adalah bagi pembayaran sepanjang bulan Defendan Pertama menjalankan aktiviti di atas Lot 2377. [Rujuk Para:7.1,dan 7.2] [31] Merujuk kepada kronologi kes, Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa permohonan pindaan ini sebenarnya bukanlah satu permohonan yang bona fide. Ini kerana Defendan telah mendapat perlanjutan masa untuk memfailkan pembelaan dan telah membuat permohonan untuk dokumen-dokumen berkaitan. Pihak Plaintif telah memfailkan permohonan untuk penghakiman terus dan kemudiannya telah memfailkan jawapan yang menyentuh tentang beberapa isu seperti pengakuan yang dibuat oleh pihak Defendan Pertama. [32] Dalam kes Lim Nyang Tak Michael v Ace Technologies SdnBhd [1995] 4 MLJ 616, Mahkamah telah ini telah menolak permohonan pindaan Defendan tersebut dan membenarkan Penghakiman Terus oleh Plaintif dan memutuskan seperti berikut:- (2) It was not a question of negligence to plead all those matter in the original defence but a tactical manoeuvre and done in bad faith to delay the rights of the plaintiff on his claim. The application to amend the defence after exposure by the plaintif in his affidavit in support was a tactic to confuse the issues by creating imaginary ‘triable issues’ and to stall the plaintiff of his rights. If this was allowed, it would unnecessarily cause prejudice to the plaintiff which could not be compensated by costs” [33] Selanjutnya, YA Abdul Kadir Sulaiman telah menyatakan alasan-alasan seperti berikut bagi memutuskan bahawa tindakan Defendan memasukkan permohonan pindaan tersebut adalah dengan male fide dan adalah tindakan taktikal (‘tactical manoeuvre’) yang boleh mengakibatkan prejudis terhadap Plaintif yang tidak mampu dipampas dengan kos: “First, I will deal with the reason for the dismissal of the defendant’s application for amendment of its defence under O 20 r 5 of the RHC. The reasons for the dismissal of the application of the defendant for the amendment of the statement of defence was on ground that it was notmade bone fide and was so made as a tactical manoeuvre to unnecessarily delay the disposal of the action of the plaintiff. The gist of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is that by an agreement as evidenced by a letter dated 20 February 1992 from the defendant, the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff a commission of $300,000 for the service of the plaintiff in arranging for the defendant to be a sub-contractor for Masrafan who is the contractor of the project. On 11 November 1992 the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement successfully introduced the defendant to Masrafan and a sub-contract for the project was executed between Masrafan and the defendant. Consequently, by a letter dated 19 February 1993 the defendant offered to pay the said agreed commission to the plaintiff by instalments commencing from 28 February 1993. The defendant tendered by way of part payment of the commission a Standard Chartered Bank cheque dated 13 June 1993 for $32,000 (‘the Standard Chartered cheque’) to the plaintiff. However, the cheque when presented for payment was dishonoured by the bank. Therefore, by a specially indorsed writ dated 20 April 1994 the plaintiff claims against the defendant for the amount of commission agreed, alternatively the sum of $300,000 on quantum merit, or in further alternative the said sum for breach of the said agreement, interest and costs. On 27 April 1994 the defendant entered an appearance to the writ and on 4 May 1994 filed a defence. In the defence the defendant admitted that on or about 11 November 1992 it executed a sub-contract with Masrafan in respect of the project. However, it denies the appointment of the plaintiff as his agent as alleged and even if the plaintiff was so appointed, it had not agreed to pay the plaintiff the said commission or at all. The defendant also denies the allegation that it had subsequently agreed to pay the commission to the plaintiff by monthly instalments. It, however, admits that the plaintiff was given the Standard Chartered cheque, but it subsequently instructed the bank to stop payment on the cheque and followed by it giving the plaintiff another drawn on Public Bank Bhd dated 18 June 1994 for the same amount (‘ the Public Bank cheque’) and this second cheque was honoured by the Bank. It avers that this amount of $42,000 wastowards repayment of a monetary advance previously made to the defendant by the plaintiff with interest thereon and not as part payment of the commission. It is to be noted that in the defence of the defendant, it was silent on the two letters mentioned by the plaintiff in his statement of claim, ie one dated 20 February 1992 as the basis for the agreement and the other dated 19 February 1993 as evidence of promise to pay the said commission by monthly instalment, apart from the general denial. Then on 12 May 1994 there was filed an application by the plaintiff for a summary judgement under O 14 RHC. As earlier mentioned, originally this application of the plaintiff included also the prayers under O 18 r 19 of the RHC. However, during the hearing, the plaintiff elected to proceed only with its application under O 14. ….. The proposed amendment is on three aspects. First is the averment that the letter dated 20 february 1992 (exh ‘LHT1’ to the affidavit in support of the plantiff’s application under O 140 is a forgery, though the signature thereon is similar to that of Chan Wa Keong, its managing director. It is also averred that the said Chan Wa Keong did not execute the letter before Lee Heng Cheong, the advocate and that the full particulars of the forgery and inauthenticity of the letter shall be furnished after discovery and/or inspection of docuements in the action. The second aspect concerns a new averment that one Jong Joo Sian, and not the plaintiff, was solely responsible for introducing the defendant to Masrafan in respect of the project abd a commission of $50,000 was paid by the defendant to this Jong Joo Sian. The last aspect concerns the letter dated 19 February 1993 (exh ‘LNT3’ to the affidavit in support of the plaintiff’s application under O 14). The defendant avers that the letter is also a forgery and not an authentic document, though the signature thereon is similar to that of Chan Wa Keong and the full particulars of the forgery and authenticity of the letter shall be furnished after discovery and/or inspection of documents. Now, if the defendant had a truly valid defence against the claim of the plaintiff it should not have waited until 25 July 1994 or as stated in the proposed amended defence until the discovery and/or inspection of documents to plead forgery and to bring in, in the proposed amendment the issue of someone else other that the plaintiff who was the agents. There was in the statement of claim of the plaintiff an averment concerning his agreement with the defendant based on a letter dated 20 February 1992 and by letter dated 19 February 1993 the defendant offered to pay the said commission by monthly instalments. In the light of such averments by the plaintiff, it would be prudent upon the defendant before it decided to file its defence to verify on these facts instead of filing a general defence denying liability. In the face of the assertion of the plaintiff in the statement of claim that he was the agent, the defendant merely makes a general denial without particularizing who the real agent was if it was not the plaintiff. It is only in the proposed amendment that a new person comes to light. It is my finding that all the issue of forgery and the new agent comes about on account of it being confronted with the evidence of the agreement in exh 'LNT1' and the evidence of proposal to pay the commission by monthly instalments in exh 'LNT3'. It is not a question of negligence to plead all those matters in the original defence but a tactical manoeuvre and done in bad faith to delay the rights of the plaintiff on his claim. The affidavit in support of the application by the defendant for amendment is affirmed by Mathew Chan Theng Kiang, the counsel for the defendant. It is not affirmed by anyone else who is able of his own knowledge to prove. It does not contain statements of information or belief with sources and grounds thereof on the material issue apart from saying that the 'Defendant saw both the letter dated the 20th day of February, 1992, and the letter dated the 19th of February, 1993, for the first time as Exh 'LNT 1' and Exh 'LNT3',respectively, in the Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support affirmed on the 12th day of May 1994'. Be that as it may, the validity of this assertion is very hard to swallow in the light of the defendant's inaction in the face of the averment in the statement of claim of the plaintiff. No reason is given for the proposed averment that Jong Joo Sian was the real agent in respect of the contract with Masrafan in theproject. The deponent also deposed that there has been no delay in making this application for amendment as no date has yet been fixed for the hearing of the action. In my view, the question of delay is one thing and the question of the motive behind its filing in the light of the circumstances, is another. The application of the plaintiff was originally scheduled to be heard on 30 July 1994. The summons was served on the defendant on 16 May 1994. But it was only on 25 July 1994, ie five days before the scheduled hearing of the application of the plaintiff, that this application of the defendant was filed together with the affidavit in opposition of the plaintiff's application, thereby directly or indirectly contributing to the delay in the disposal of the plaintiff's application. The application to amend the defence after the exposure by the plaintiff in his affidavit in support is nothing but a tactic to confuse the issue by creating an imaginary 'triable issue' and to stall, if not to deprive, the plaintiff of his right. If this is allowed it would unnecessarily cause prejudice to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated by costs”. [34] Mahkamah juga telah merujuk pada kes Everise Hectares Sdn Bhd v. Citibank Bhd [2010] 3 MLRA 306, di mana Hakim-Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan telah menolak permohonan Perayu bagi meminda Pernyataan Pembelaan Perayu atas alasan permohonan pindaan tersebut tidak bona fide dan merupakan tindakan taktikal (‘tactical manoeuvre’) bagi menghalang Responden untuk melaksanakan penghakiman yang diperolehi oleh Responden. Hakim-Hakim yang bijaksana di dalam kes rayuan ini juga telah merujuk keputusan yang diputuskan di dalam kes Lim Nyang Tak Micheal (supra) selanjutnya memutuskan seperti berikut:- “The Filing Of The Amendment Application Was A Tactical Manoeuvre [35] The filing of the amendment application can best be described as a tactical manoeuvre on the part of the appellant to delay and prevent therespondent bank from completing the sale of the said land to Fenomena Kualiti Sdn Bhd. [36] Legally speaking, if the appellant intended to prevent the sale of the said land to Fenomena Kualiti Sdn Bhd, the appellant should have taken the following steps: (a) appealed against the dismissal of the first injunction application; and (b) applied for an erinford injunction pending the appeal to the Court of Appeal. [37] Alas, all these were not done by the appellant. Instead, the appellant filed the amendment application some months after the dismissal of the first injunction application. [38] Tactical manoeuvrings were frowned upon by the courts in the following cases. [39] In Tetuan Tanjung Teras & Ors v. Tetuan Syn Tai Hung Trading Sdn Bhd[2003] 2 MLRH 242; [2003] 4 MLJ 465; [2003] 7 CLJ 124 , where LowHop Bing J (now JCA) aptly said at p. 129 of the report: The defendants' application herein is made at the appeal stage after the learned sessions court judge has arrived at a decision upon consideration of all the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits before him. It seems to me that this is a tactical manoeuvre amounting to an abuse of the process of the court and should be disallowed: Ismail bin Ibrahim & Ors v. Sum Poh Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [1988] 1 MLRH 186; [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 606; [1988] 2CLJ 632 ; [1988] 3 MLJ 348. [40] In Lim Nyang Tak Michael v. ACE Technologies Sdn Bhd [1995] 4 MLRH 442; [1995] 4 MLJ 616 , where Abdul Kadir Suleiman J (later FCJ) rightly held that: It was not a question of negligence to plead all those matters in the original defence but a tactical manoeuvre and done in bad faith to delay the rights of the plaintiff on his claim. The application to amend the defence after exposure by the plaintiff in his affidavit in support was a tactic to confuse the issues by creating imaginary 'triable issues' and to stall the plaintiff of his rights. If this was allowed, it would unnecessarily cause prejudice to the plaintiff which could not be compensated by costs. [41] In Ismail bin Ibrahim & Ors v. Sum Poh Development Sdn Bhd & Anor[1988] 1 MLRH 186; [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 606 , where Mohamed Dzaiddin J (later Chief Justice of Malaysia) aptly said: The rule governing the amendment of pleadings is that the court will allow such amendments as will cause no injustice to the other parties. However, there are two circumstances in which an amendment to add an allegation of fraud would not be permitted: (a) where the facts giving rise to the plea of fraud were known at the time of the original pleading and (b) where the delay in pleading fraud was in connection with some tactical manoeuvre. [42] The general rule that an amendment will be permitted if the opposing party does not suffer an injustice as a result of the proposed amendment must be put to the fore (Khoo Tau Guan v. Weng Lai Ping & Ors[2003] 3 MLRH 467; [2004] 5 CLJ 249 ). But, in exercising its discretion to allow or disallow a pleading to be amended, the court must consider the position of all the parties. [43] Here, the resulting prejudice to the respondent bank cannot be compensated by costs because of the appellant's mala fide in filing theamendment application after a delay of 7 months and 27 days and the manoeuvrings of the appellant to delay the sale of the said land to Fenomena Kualiti Sdn Bhd.” [35] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Bank Of Commerce (M) Bhd v Mazlan Khamis & Ors [1999] 1 CLJ 499 di manaYA T Selventhiran telah memutuskan bahawa: - “[2] Looking at the amendments sought here, it was clear that the first defendant was pleading disputed facts. The first defendant sought to take a stance not only inconsistent with but also contrary to what was pleaded in the original defence and counterclaim. [3] The first defendant was not applying for leave to amend his previous pleading so as to plead in the alternative the allegations now sought to be raised, as he would be allowed to do pursuant to O. 18 r. 10(2) of the RHC, but instead was seeking to raise altogether new grounds of defence and counterclaim which were inconsistent with his previous pleading as contained in the original defence and counterclaim, which he would be clearly prohibited from doing under O. 18 r. 10(1) of the RHC.32. [5] In the absence of any affidavit stating otherwise, it could be deemed that the first defendant was in possession of the facts sought to be introduced now by amendment when the original defence and counterclaim were filed. [6] In the absence of any affidavit evidence explaining why the amendments now sought were not incorporated in the defendants' original defence and counterclaim, the inescapable conclusion was that the amendments sought clearly amounted to overreaching. [7]The first defendant's application to amend his pleading was made at the time when the plaintiff had already tendered nearly all its evidence. The defendants should have asked for the amendment at a much earlier stage. Therefore, if the first defendant did not intend to support his application by affidavit evidence, he should have so applied before the filing of the plaintiff's applications for summary judgment and to strike out the original counterclaim which would entitle the plaintiff to have the matter disposed of with finality in a summary manner. [8] The proceedings having reached this stage, it was incumbent upon the first defendant to produce some credible evidence upon affidavit to support his application to amend his pleadings. As he has consciously elected not to do so, this led the court to believe that his application to amend his pleading was a mere tactical manoeuvre solely intended to overreach. [36] Merujuk kepada perbandingan perbezaan Pernyataan Pembelaan Asal dan Cadangan Pernyataan Pembelaan Terpinda Defendan Pertama, Mahkamah mendapati terdapat perbezaan yang ketara antara pembelaan asal dan pembelaan terpinda yang dipohon. Dengan ini, Mahkamah bersetuju dengan hujahan Plaintif bahawa pindaan Pernyataan Pembelaan Defendan Pertama adalah tidak konsisten dan bercanggah dengan Pernyataan Pembelaan Asal Defendan Pertama tersebut. Pembelaan terpinda yang dicadangkan telah mengubah pembelaan asal menjadi sesuatu pembelaan yang baru. [37] Selanjutnya, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa Defendan Pertama tidak mengemukakan bukti-bukti atau keterangan di mana-mana Afidavit untuk menjelaskan sebab tidak memplidkan pindaan-pindaan yang dipohon pada peringkat awal, iaitu semasa memfailkan Pernyataan Pembelaan Asal Defendan Pertama, terutamanya setelah Defendan Pertama diberi perlanjutan masa sebanyak 3 kali untuk memfailkan pembelaan dengan alasan untuk mendapatkan dokumen dan fakta-fakta yang releven. [38] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Gas Malaysia Berhad v Ikram Engineering Services Sdn Bhd; Azizi Sudin (Pihak Ketiga) [2016] 1 LNS 84, YA T Gunalan Muniandy telah menolak permohonan pindaan Pembelaan seperti berikut: - [16] “……… It is also, undoubtedly, a clear attempt by the Defendant, having made an admission that it had carried out the drilling works on the instructions of the 3rd party, to now retract the admission, which would certainly prejudice the Plaintiff in pursuing its claim. As the party seeking the amendments, it is incumbent for Defendant to proffer an explanation as to why it is seeking to retract the admission and why it was not made in the first place. In Pan Malaysia Pools Sdn. Bhd. v. Kwan Tat Thai & Anor [2010] 1 LNS 968, the learned Judicial Commissioner referred to the Australian Supreme Court case of BP Australia Limited. v. Bryan Campbell Carige & Ors. trading as Able Freight Service [1992] 112 FLR 119 where it was observed: “Where the proposed change involves the withdrawal of an admission, a further matter arises for consideration. In Langdale and Anor v. Danby[1982] 1 WLR 1123 Lord Bridge of Harwich, speaking for the House of Lords, said at 1134 that in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, a court is entitled to assume that counsel who make an admission was, on his client's version of the fact, a proper admission to make. In our opinion a court, and other parties to litigation, are similarly entitled to make that assumption about admissions made by solicitors on their client's behalf in the course of litigation whether in the pleadings or in correspondence. For this reason, where leave to withdraw an admission is sought, a court will require an explanation for the making of an admission. The explanation must be sensible one based on evidence of a solid and substantial character; Langdale v. Danby at 1134; Hollis v. Burton[1892] 3 Ch 226; and Cumper v. Pothecary [1941] 2 KB 58 at 70.” [39] Dalam kes ini, tiada sebarang alasanyang dapat dijumpai di Afidavit Sokongan dan Afidavit Balasan Defendan Pertamabagi pindaan menarik balik pengakuan di dalam Pernyataan Pembelaan Asal tersebut. Oleh itu, tidak dipertikaikan bahawa pindaan-pindaan tersebut adalah male fide dan bertujuan untuk tindakan taktikal (“tactical manoeuvre’). Hal ini juga akan menyebabkan ketidakadilan kepada Plaintif dan memprejudiskan Plaintif yang tidak boleh dipampas dengan kos. [40] Di samping itu, dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah ini, Mahkamah mendapati bahawa cadangan pindaan kepada Pernyataan Pembelaan Defendan Pertama adalah sesuatu yang boleh disifatkan sebagai telah mengubah sifat pertikaian itu sendiri. Dalam hal ini, Defendan Pertama telah menggunakan peluang tersebut untuk membuat cadangan pindaan kepada Pembelaan dengan memasukkan pembelaan bahawa Defendan Pertama tidak faham surat perjanjian dan aku janji bertarikh 7.12.2020 dan menandatanganinya dalam keadaan terpaksa. [41] Berdasarkan penelitian Mahkamah ini terhadap Cadangan Pindaan kepada Pernyataan Pembelaan Defendan Pertama, Mahkamah menegaskan bahawa pindaan-pindaan yang dicadangkan itu tidak mencerminkan alasan-alasan yang dinyatakan dalam Afidavit Sokongan Defendan Pertama (Lampiran 19). Hal ini demikian keranapindaan yang dicadangkan dalam Lampiran 19 tersebut adalah banyak, bersifat ekstensifdan mengubah sifat (character)asal pliding tersebut kepada suatu tindakan guaman yang lain. F. KESIMPULAN [42] Penukaran pendirian-pendirian yang diambil oleh Defendan dalam Pembelaannya adalah pada dapatan mahkamah bukan bona fide dan merupakan pemikiran semula. Perkara yang dibangkitkan oleh Defendan dalam cadangan pindaan pembelaan sepatutnya telah pun dalam pengetahuan Defendan semasa pembelaan asal dibuat. Pindaan yang dicadangkan ini telah menukar sifat/karakter pembelaan Defendan Pertama itu sendiri. [43] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan yang diberikan di atas, setelah Mahkamah menimbang dan mengambil kira kesemua kertas kausa berkaitan, hujahan bertulis pihak-pihak serta hujahan balasan bertulis pihak-pihak, Mahkamah atas imbangan kebarangkalian menolak Notis Permohonan Defendan Pertama(Lampiran 18) dengan kos sebanyak RM 2000.00 diberikan kepada pihak Plaintif. Disediakan oleh: WAN NOR AKLIMA BINTI WAN SALLEH Hakim, Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur Bertarikh: 22.4.2024 PIHAK-PIHAK Peguamcara Pihak Plaintif: Encik Low Joo Hean bersama-sama dengan Cik Norja Binti Abdul Razak [Tetuan Ching Tan & Assoc.] Peguamcara Pihak Defendan Pertama: Cik Moganeysha A/P Nagendran bersama-sama dengan Encik Najumuddin [Tetuan Moga & Associates]