Engagement Session With Deputy Registrars Of The Kuala Lumpur Courts On 9 September 2021

Dear Members of the Kuala Lumpur Bar,

 

The Civil Practice & Court Liaison Committee organised a webinar entitled “Engagement Session With Deputy Registrars Of The Kuala Lumpur Courts” on 9 September 2021 (“The Session”). The webinar was presented by Deputy Registrars, Puan Fatimah Rubi’ah binti Ali, Tuan Ashraf Rezal bin Abdul Manan, Tuan Mahyudin bin Mohmad Som, Puan Salamiah binti Salleh and Puan Nurul Nadia binti Abdul Razak.

 

We set out below a summary of the key points highlighted during the Session:

 

 

The Court will refer to Order 42 and Form 75 of the Rules of Court 2012 when reviewing the draft Orders and Judgments prepared by the parties. The Court will also review the Originating Process and/or the Notice of Application.

 

For Civil cases, the Court will review the Originating Process/Application and refer to the minutes of the Judge or Registrar in order to approve the draft order and Judgement prepared by the parties. If there are issues with the approved draft order, members may seek clarification from the Registrar or Judge.

 

In general, the Court has a standard format and if the lawyer follows the standard format/general wording, the court will approve it accordingly. The Chief Registrar had issued guidelines in 2010 for the processing of draft orders/judgments which are still applicable today.

 

In respect of whether there is a need to detail the cause papers in the draft Orders and/or judgment, this would differ depending on the circumstances of the matter before the Court.

2. No Option To File Notes of Proceedings (“Nota Keterangan”)

The Notes of Proceedings are not considered as a cause paper in an original action. Instead, the Notes of Proceedings are an elementary document in an appeal action at the appellate level, alongside the records of appeal and grounds of judgment.

 

In the event parties wish to file the Notes of Proceedings, parties may file the same by way of letter because the current system does not have a specific category for the same. The necessity for Notes of Proceedings will differ depending on the matter before the Court as well as the needs of the respective Judge. Given the current reliance on technology by the Courts, the Judge will usually request for a softcopy of the Notes of Proceedings.

3. Registrars Are Not Contactable

It is The Registrars’ responsibility to ensure that they are reachable and that they are contactable in any way. The Registrars acknowledged that there was a lot of feedback from members and the public that they could not reach the Registrar.The Registrars suggested contacting them through email or EFS for any enquiries as they may not be able to answer the phone because they are conducting hearings/case management.

There was also feedback raised where the Registrar did not respond to emails. It was suggested that in such circumstances, the Managing Registrars be copied in the e-mail so that the Court can monitor especially for appointments at the counter and/or to try and follow up with the Registrar through a telephone call and/or WhatsApp.

 

The Court has circulated the contact details of the Supervisory Officers to the Kuala Lumpur Bar. Members can refer to our Circular No: 109/2021 dated 25 May 2021.

4. What Lawyers Should Do If There Is Error In Filing, For Example Where A NCC Matter Is Filed Under NCvC

The Registrar will usually prescribe a short case management and parties will be given two options of either making an application to transfer the case to another division or to file a Notice of Discontinuance (“NOD”) and refile the matter afresh. The Registrars were of the view that the latter will be faster.

 

 

There are two ways to request a refund, the preference for which would be dependent on the initial order given.

1. Letter
   Where the order of Court under which the deposit/security is made is very clear and also specifies the terms and the conditions when and to whom the deposit/security is to be refunded, members may apply for the refund by way of a letter. At the end of the disposal of the case, the condition is triggered and no further order is necessary. Parties can write a letter to the Court enclosing the Court order together with a bank statement for the Court to verify the account details. If parties don’t have a copy of these documents, they are to enclose a Statutory Declaration, affirming that they lost their copies.
2. Notice of Application
   Where the terms and conditions to refund the deposit/security is unspecified in the original order, an application for refund must be made by way of a Notice of Application and to be served on the opponents (to be heard inter partes).

The eReview is meant to deal with simple case Managements, while complicated matters will be converted into physical proceedings. Due to the pandemic, this would be carried out online where everyone can appear in real time.The Registrar should notify the lawyer whether the eReview will be conducted in real-time or flexible time.

Suggestions/actions that can be taken by a lawyer:

1. If the lawyer does not receive a response from the Registrar and needs to leave the session for another matter, the lawyer can request to stand down and leave the session. Based on this, the Registrar cannot strike out the matter as the attendance has been recorded in the Notes of the proceedings.
2. Parties can request to change case management to a flexi-time basis if they are unable to stay on the eReview in real-time.
3. Inform the Managing Registrar so that they can examine the specific case to find out the reason for the delay.

The categories of documents were prescribed based on the Rules of Court 2012 where the standard documents type were Pleadings and Amended Pleadings. In the event there are various amended pleadings and there is no available category for the filing, parties can file under the next closest/relevant option. If this still rejected, parties can notify the Managing Registrar for assistance.

8. Confusion Over Whether Matters Are For Cases To Be Conducted Via eReview, Email, Zoom Or In Person. Request If The Court Can Update The Mode Of The Hearing In The EFS System

There are two options to check on the mode of hearing:

1. For a faster response, the lawyer can contact the Managing Registrar and provide the case number for them to check. The Managing Registrar will provide the details of the case including the hearing platform.Please note that parties will be notified of the Zoom link via letter or notification through EFS. Notifications will be sent to the registered email. If a firm registers their public email, the administrator at the firm will need to send the zoom link to the lawyer who is handling the case.
2. Lawyers can check on the e-Courts portal using the search function on the right corner.

9. Suggestion To Standardise Hearings By Way Of eReview Or Zoom

The Court has acknowledged this concern and a directive has been issued. For any contested matters, the appropriate platform is to be conducted via Zoom because the Zoom platform can closely replicate the previous norm.

 

For uncontested matters, it will be via email or eReview. In the event parties wish to conduct a hearing via Zoom, parties may contact the Registrar to seek the Court’s discretion to convert the matter to be heard by Zoom.

 

Members should also refer to our Circular No: 189/2021 dated 7 August 2021.

10. Request For Parties To Be Updated On Adjournment Of Cases In Advance

Lawyers can check on the eCourts portal, using the search function, to find out whether the case has been adjourned or contact the relevant officer/Registrar.

 

If there are circumstances where the lawyer has conducted a search but there is no update from the Court on the adjournment of the case, the Managing Registrar should be notified so that they can look into the matter and bring the matter to the Court’s attention to ensure the information in the EFS System is up to date.

 

Vivekananda Sukumaran
Chairman
Kuala Lumpur Bar CommitteeNizam Bashir
Nimalan Devaraja
Co-Chairpersons
Civil Practice & Court Liaison Committee