Author: editor

DATO’ TAN HENG CHEW v. TAN KIM HOR & ORS [2008] 7 CLJ 776

editor

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the plaintiff – Lim Kian Leong; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

High Court

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment – Pleadings – Principles governing amendments – Whether application to amend is bona fide – Whether prejudice caused to other side can readily be compensated by costs – Whether amendments would turn suit from one character into a suit of another and inconsistent character

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment – Addition of new cause of action – Power of court to grant amendment after expiry of limitation period where effect of amendment will be to add or substitute a new cause of action – New cause of action must arise out of same or substantially same facts

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment – Parties – Application for leave to substitute name of law firm with names of its partners – Plaintiff attempting to amend his statement of claim by pleading innuendo and seeking to introduce extrinsic facts – Whether will cause detriment and prejudice to defendants which cannot be compensated by costs – Whether proposed amendments made issues in controversy clearer – Whether proposed amendments would delay proceedings further – Whether proposed amendments were a tactical manoeuvre which was an abuse of court process – Proposed amendments would have nullified mutual concessions and admissions that parties had made in statement of agreed facts – Whether application for amendment disallowed

TAN KIM HOR & ORS v. TAN HENG CHEW & ORS [2004] 3 CLJ 401

editor

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the respondents – Lim Kian Leong; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

High Court

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment – Petition – Companies winding-up petition – Whether petitioners’ proposed amendments to petition barred by doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel – Whether ‘new events’ via proposed amendments already determined on their merits before – Whether there would be abuse of process of court – Principles in amendment of pleadings – Whether also applicable to winding-up petitions – Companies Act 1965, s. 221(2)(e) – Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 20 rr. 5 & 7 – Injustice – Bona fides of application – Prejudice and compensation with costs – Character of suit

COMPANY LAW: Winding-up – Petition – Amendment – Whether petitioners’ proposed amendments to petition barred by doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel – Whether ‘new events’ via proposed amendments already determined on their merits before – Whether there would be abuse of process of court – Principles in amendment of pleadings – Whether also applicable to winding-up petitions – Companies Act 1965, s. 221(2)(e) – Rules of the High Court 1980, O. 20 rr. 5 & 7 – Injustice – Bona fides of application – Prejudice and compensation with costs – Character of suit

MALAYSIA BRITISH ASSURANCE BHD v. SIHAZKO SDN BHD & ORS [2004] 8 CLJ 423

editor

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
For the plaintiff/respondent – Tan Keng Teck; M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

High Court

CONTRACT: Formation – Consideration – Whether exchange of mutual promises could constitute consideration – Contracts Act 1950, s. 2(e), (f)

CONTRACT: Consideration – Executory consideration – Whether good consideration – Contracts Act 1950, s. 2(d)

CONTRACT: Consideration – Mutual promises – Whether reciprocal promises – Whether exchange of mutual promises could constitute consideration – Contracts Act 1950, s. 2(e), (f)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Action – Cause of action – Whether action involving recovery of a penalty or forfeiture or sum by way of penalty or forfeiture – Whether action merely recovery of a debt due and owing