Victor Goh v Low Wee Fook (BA-12ANCvC-35-06/2025)

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 10-6-2025 was an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court on 27-5- 2025 that struck off the Appellant’s application in Enclosure 10 and allowed the Respondent’s Amended Statement of Claim dated 19-5-2025 (“Amended SOC”).

The appeal was called up at about 11.00 am on 23-9-2025. The Appellant omitted to file any written submissions as directed or to attend the hearing scheduled at 10.30 am. Analysis and findings

There were various complaints of irregularities about the Notice of Appeal and the Record of Appeal filed by the Appellant. This Court considered only the substantive matters that arose from the decision of the Sessions Court Judge which relate to the application of Order 20 Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“RC”).

The date of pleadings filed by the parties at the Sessions Court were as follows: S/N U1oaxyPiOEimOnd63pVevw Pleading Date Statement of Claim 7-3-2025 Defence and Counterclaim 23-4-2025 Reply and Defence to Counterclaim 8-5-2025 Amended SOC 19-5-2025

The Respondent’s Amended SOC was amended pursuant to Order 20 Rule 3 of the RC which reads:

Amendment of pleadings without leave (O. 20 r. 3)

A party may, without the leave of the Court, amend any pleading of his once at any time before the pleadings are deemed to be closed and, where he does so, he shall serve the amended pleading on the opposite party.

According to Order 18 Rule 20 of the RC set out below:

Close of pleadings (O. 18 r. 20)

The pleadings in an action are deemed to be closed-

at the expiration of fourteen days after service of the reply or, if there is no reply but only a defence to a counterclaim, after service of the defence to the counterclaim; or

if neither a reply nor a defence to the counterclaim is served, at the expiration of fourteen days after service of the defence. S/N U1oaxyPiOEimOnd63pVevw Pleadings in this case would have only been deemed closed on 22-5-2025. The filing and service of the Amended SOC without leave was thus in order.

The Appellant then filed Enclosure 10 pursuant to Order 20 Rule 4 of the RC which was also procedurally in order. It reads as follows:

Application for disallowance of amendment made without leave (O. 20 r. 4)

Within fourteen days after the service on a party of a writ amended under rule 1(1) or of a pleading amended under rule 3(1), that party may apply to the Court to disallow the amendment.

Where the Court hearing an application under this rule is satisfied that if an application for leave to make the amendment in question had been made under rule 5 at the date when the amendment was made under rule 1(1) or rule 3(1) leave to make the amendment or part of the amendment would have been refused, it shall order the amendment or that part to be struck out.

Any order made on an application under this rule may be made on such terms as to costs or otherwise as the Court thinks just.

Enclosure 10 was heard by the Sessions Court Judge by e-Review. There was a colourful exchange between counsel that S/N U1oaxyPiOEimOnd63pVevw digressed into questions around service of Enclosure 10, which counsel for the Appellant insisted had been properly served via email against objections by counsel for the Respondent that this mode of service was not consented to.

After hearing parties, the Sessions Court Judge accepted the Amended SOC and struck off Enclosure 10. There were multiple emails in the Record of Appeal from solicitors for the Respondent, repeatedly and in bold underlined and capped font, notifying solicitors for the Appellant that they do not agree to service by email.

This Court agreed entirely with the exercise of discretion and decision of the Sessions Court Judge, both in her approach to counsel and her evaluation of the propriety of the Amended

The crux of the Appellant’s complaint was that the amendments were a tactical response to the Appellant’s application in Enclosure 7 to strike out parts of the Respondent’s Reply and Defence to Counterclaim. It is difficult to see the logic of this argument, since the pending striking out was to a different pleading from the one amended.

Even if Enclosure 10 had been heard on its merits, the amendments proposed in the Amended SOC would, in the ordinary course of an application for leave to amend, have S/N U1oaxyPiOEimOnd63pVevw been allowed at such an early stage of the proceedings. This is based on established principles that need not be repeated here.

After reviewing the Appeal Records and the Respondent’s written submissions, and based on the considerations set out above, the appeal was dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00. Bertarikh : 16 Oktober 2025 SGD ELAINE YAP CHIN GAIK PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM Peguam bagi Perayu/Defendan: Solicitors not present (Messrs Bestian Ng & Co.) Peguam bagi Responden/Plaintif: Goh Hooi Hooi (Messrs Kelvin Wong, Phang &