Category: Current Law Journal

ATLAN HOLDINGS BHD & ANOR v. TAN SRI DATO’ TAJUDIN RAMLI [2008] 5 CLJ 222

editor

COUNSEL & SOLICITOR:
(Civil Appeal No: W-02-425-2008) For the respondent – Lim Kian Leong (Low Chi Cheng with him); M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co Court Of Appeal (Civil Appeal No: 02-426-2008) For the respondent – Lim Kian Leong (Low Chi Cheng with him); M/s Lim Kian Leong & Co

Court Of Appeal

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Injunction – Injunction restraining defendants from disposing assets – Stay – Principles applicable – Whether there was an arguable case against defendants – Undertaking as to damages – Whether injunction ought to be dissolved

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Execution – Stay – Injunction restraining defendants from disposing assets – Principles applicable – Whether there was an arguable case against defendants – Undertaking as to damages – Whether injunction ought to be dissolved

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