Johnny Ang v 1. ) LIM LI Lian (WA-A52NCC-21-01/2022)

LIM LI LIAN (NO. K/P: 890731-14-5148) [Didakwa dalam keupayaan peribadi dan sebagai satu firma yang dikenali sebagai One Future Network Enterprise (No. Pendaftaran: 201503355114 (002498171-W))]

LIM WING WAI (NO. K/P: 910714-14-6013) [Didakwa dalam keupayaan peribadi dan sebagai satu firma yang dikenali sebagai One Future Network Enterprise (No. Pendaftaran: 201503355114 (002498171-W))] …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN (Membatalkan Permohonan Pindaan Lampiran 145) PENGENALAN [1] Pada hari pertama bicara bermula, pihak defendan memohon untuk meminda penyataan tuntutan dan memohon agar bicara yang ditetapkan ditangguhkan sehingga permohonan ini dilupuskan. [2] Saya tidak membenarkan penangguhan dan mengarahkan agar bicara diteruskan memandangkan kes ini adalah kes lama yang telah difailkan tahun S/N 0tAOKTrdwEyjeo7RgAP7ww

Pihak plaintif mempunyai masa yang banyak sebelum ini untuk meminda. Jika permohonan ini di buat lebih awal dan tidak mengganggu bicara yang telah ditetapkan lebih awal. Pihak defendan tidak menjelaskan kelewatan permohonan ini yang di buat pada saat akhir. [3] Kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Hong Leong Finance Berhad v Low Thiam Hoe [2015] MLJU 1165 adalah dirujuk dan dibentangkan di bawah ini bersama fakta kes yang dinyatakan seperti berikut. [5] The case went through five pre-trial case management sessions on 28.9.2011, 19.10.2011,

3.11.2011, 21.11.2011 and 13.1.2012. There was no intimation by the defendant at any time at the case management sessions of any need to amend the defence. On 24.2.2012 the High Court fixed the matter for trial on 19.3.2012 and 20.3.2012 on the pleading as it stood. [6] On Thursday 15.3.2012, the defendant filed for the first time the application to amend the defence ["Application to Amend"] and a counterclaim. It was served on Friday 16.3.2012 giving no time for the plaintiff to reply. The Application to Amend was fixed for hearing on Monday 19.3.2012 (i.e. the first day of trial). The amendment sought to introduce two new and distinct defences. First, by paragraph 4 of the Proposed Amended Defence the defendant alleged that he was a mere nominee and therefore not liable for the loan. Secondly, by paragraph 35 of the Proposed Amended Defence the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had not accounted for the securities mortgaged by the defendant as security for the facility, or the proceeds of their sale. [7] In the defendant's affidavit in support of the Application to Amend there was no explanation for the gross delay other than stating that he had only discovered the new defences when preparing for trial that these purportedly important defences were not pleaded. PROCEEDINGS AT THE HIGH COURT [8] On 19.3.2012, the High Court heard and dismissed the Application to Amend. In dismissing the Application to Amend the High Court had relied on three factors, namely, the gross delay; the absence of any credible explanation for the delay and importantly that the amendment will prevent the trial from proceeding. The learned trial Judge in her judgment amongst others had this to say: ...Of course, I am aware that amendments can be made at any stage before judgment is delivered but not to prevent the trial from proceeding. It was made at the eleventh hour. [9] The next day on 20.3.2012, the defendant filed the notice of appeal against the decision of the trial Judge in dismissing the Application to Amend. However, the defendant did not apply for a stay but participated fully in the trial on all three subsequent days, namely 28.3.2012, S/N 0tAOKTrdwEyjeo7RgAP7ww

29.3.2012 and 12.4.2012. In all, seven witnesses were heard and judgment on the merits was given in favour of the plaintiff. PROCEEDINGS AT THE COURT OF APPEAL [10] The Court of Appeal fixed the Amendment Appeal and the Merits Appeal to be heard together on 7.11.2012. The Court of Appeal proceeded to first hear the Amendment Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Amendment Appeal. The Court of Appeal then, without hearing the parties, allowed the Merits Appeal and ordered a new trial before a different judge. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY [26] 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. [27] In our instant case, there had been five case managements since 2011 and there was no indication at all that an amendment application was contemplated by the defendant. The only explanation given by the defendant in his affidavit for the delay was that he had only discovered that these new issues were not pleaded when preparing for trial. Such an explanation in our view surely cannot be acceptable. TACTICAL MANOEUVRE [28] Another factor which our Courts have taken into consideration is whether the amendment application was made as a tactical manoeuvre. In the Court of Appeal case of Everise Hectares Sdn Bhd v Citibank Berhad.[supra] the amendment application was disallowed as the application was a tactical manoeuvre to delay and prevent the respondent bank from completing the sale of land. In the case of Ismail Ibrahim & Ors v Sum Poh Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [1988] 2 CLJ 632 the amendment application was disallowed as that amendment was made to circumvent the striking out application of the original writ and the statement of claim. CONCLUSION [35] For the reasons above stated the plaintiff's appeals are allowed with costs. The orders made by the Court of Appeal on both the appeals are set aside and consequently the orders made by the High Court are hereby restored. S/N 0tAOKTrdwEyjeo7RgAP7ww KEPUTUSAN DALAM PERMOHONAN PINDAAN TIDAK KOMPETEN UNTUK DIRAYU [4] Rayuan terhadap pindaan adalah tidak kompeten seperti diputuskan di dalam Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v. Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2020] 3 CLJ 153 [5] Responden-responden merayu di Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi membenarkan permohonan pindaan. Mahkamah Rayuan membenarkan rayuan responden-responden. Maka timbul rayuan ini. Soalan yang timbul untuk pemutusan ialah sama ada perintah yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Tinggi, yang membenarkan permohonan perayu meminda pernyataan tuntutan terpinda semula boleh dirayu. [6] Mahkamah Persekutuan membenarkan rayuan dan mengetepikan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan, seperti berikut. Held (allowing appeal with costs and setting aside decision of Court of Appeal) Per Idrus Harun FCJ (for the majority):

The appellant was successful in all of their contentions. The High Court’s decision to allow the amendment application was not appealable to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was incompetent in limine and, as such, could not be laid before the Court of Appeal as it was clearly precluded by law. (para 66) Azahar Mohamed CJ (Malaya) (concurring):

The present position in law holds that an appeal does not lie against a decision in an amendment application made in the course of a trial and, further, such a decision does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. The judgment in Kempadang, which was the decision of this court represented the law on the subject matter as applied today [7] Jika permohonan pindaan didengar terlebih dahulu ia akan menjejaskan tarikh bicara kerana masa perlu diperuntukkan untuk pihak plaintif memfailkan afidavit dan seterusnya pihak defendan dibenarkan pula membalas afidavit plaintif. Jika pindaan dibenarkan, ia akan memberi kesan kepada penyata saksi yang telah difailkan kerana penyata saksi tersebut mungkin perlu dipinda. S/N 0tAOKTrdwEyjeo7RgAP7ww [8] Saya mendapati tidak ada penjelasan diberikan mengenai kelewatan di dalam pemfailan permohonan pindaan. [9] Selain itu , saksi-saksi juga hadir dan bersedia untuk bicara. [10] Saya berpendapat pemfailan ini adalah satu taktik melewatkan perbicaraan. Oleh yang demikian, adalah wajar untuk permohonan dibatalkan. KESIMPULAN [11] Atas alasan yang dinyatakan di atas dan keputusan kes-kes Mahkamah Persekutuan, saya memutuskan untuk membatalkan permohonan pindaan. Bertarikh pada hari ini 3.6.2025 Zaman bin Mohd Noor Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Sivil 1 Kuala Lumpur S/N 0tAOKTrdwEyjeo7RgAP7ww