Dear Members and Pupils in Chambers,

RE: MEETING WITH THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUDGE OF MALAYA DATUK SERI HASHIM BIN HAMZAH AND THE PERAK BAR COMMITTEE ON 4 AUGUST 2026 AT 9.00 AM IN KUALA KANGSAR COURT COMPLEX

_________________________________________________________________________________________

We refer to the above meeting and to our circular dated 24.7.2026.

Also in attendance during the said were the Honourable Judge of the Federal Court and Managing Judge of the Perak Courts, Dato’ Nordin bin Hassan; the Honourable Senior High Court Judge of Perak, Dato’ Abdul Wahab bin Mohamed; the Honourable Chief Registrar of the Federal Court; the Honourable Registrar of the High Court of Malaya; the Honourable Registrar of the Subordinate Courts of Malaya; and the Honourable Director of the Perak Courts and Judicial Officers from the High Court Perak and the Lower Court Perak.

During the said meeting the issues raised by our members as well as that by the Perak Bar Committee were brought up for discussion and the outcome is set out below: –

1. Relaxation of Requirements for Summons served by AR Registered Post

The existing practice of requiring the defendant’s personal signature on the AR Card renders service by AR Registered Post almost indistinguishable from personal service, thereby defeating its purpose as a cost-effective and efficient alternative. In practice, postal deliveries are made during working hours when the defendant is typically absent. The AR Card is often signed by a family member, domestic helper, or occupant at the address, yet the court frequently rejects such service as invalid.

The request was for a Practice Direction to be issued that service by AR Registered is valid as long as it is dispatched to the defendant’s last known address and the AR Card is signed by any adult occupant at that address. A further request was that the court should adopt a presumption of due delivery, rebuttable only upon the defendant’s sworn affidavit proving non-receipt and absence from the address during the relevant period.

The Honourable Chief Judge of Malaya responded by stating that the request for a Practice Direction cannot be entertained by citing the Federal Court case of GOH TENG WHOO & ANOR v. AMPLE OBJECTIVE SDN BHD [2021] 4 CLJ 348 because any Practice Direction to that effect will be invalid as Practice Directions are administrative instruments and cannot override any Rules of Court or statute (MAPLE AMALGAMATED SDN BHD v BANK PERTANIAN MALAYSIA BERHAD [2019] MLJU 1459).  The Honourable Chief Judge of Malaya suggested that the Rules Committee of the Malaysian Bar write to the Chief Justice to amend the Rules of Court.

2. Service by AR Registered Post to be supplemented with a simultaneous email or SMS notification to the defendant’s last known contact details, where available.

Service by electronic communications is provided for under Order 10 Rule 1 (1) and Order 62 rule 6 (1) (cc) of the Rules of Court but it is subject to the issuance of Practice Direction. We requested that the that a Practice Direction be issued to the effect to which the Honourable Chief Judge of Malaya stated that they will look into it. The issue will the type of electronic communication that can be permitted.

3. Standardisation of Bailiff Transport Arrangements During Execution of Writ of Seizure & Sale

We highlighted that according to one of our members some bailiffs, in Ipoh particularly, insists that lawyers provide pick-up and drop-off services from the courthouse. This not only causes inconvenience but also creates an unprofessional dynamic, particularly when bailiffs refuse to sit beside the lawyer, leading to an awkward and inefficient execution process. The request for the court to issue a standard operating procedure (SOP) mandating that all bailiffs, regardless of gender or seniority, must use their own transport or court-provided vehicles when executing Warrants of Seizure and Sale (WSS).

At the meeting YAA informed that are already circulars in place for bailiff’s travelling expenses (copy enclosed) and there is no necessity for lawyers to provide transport.

4. The abolition of court deposit for Writ of Seizure & Sale and instead replace it with a fixed processing

The above suggestion was raised by a lawyer due to the difficult and time-consuming process of trying to get a refund of the deposit from court in the above proceeding. YAA stated that such amendments to the rules must be made through the relevant committee in the Bar Council. YAA had his reservation as to whether all lawyers were agreeable for the abolition of the deposit and replace it with a fixed fee which is not recoverable.

5. Upgrading of the entire E- filing system

Various suggestions were given to the Perak Bar Committee and we escalated it to YAA. YAA informed that current E-Filing System is in the process of being upgraded. There was a request for lawyers to give feedback before the upgrading was done and the suggestions should have been sent in then.

6. Lack of Tamil language and Chinese dialect interpreters

YAA informed that this is a nationwide problem as there are no takers for the position despite advertising it. However, the Judiciary has submitted to Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awan for the intake of new interpreters and it is pending.

7. Lack of Judicial Officers in Taiping

The issue raised was there is only one Penolong Kanan Pendafter to handle all civil and criminal cases and also to perform administrative work in Taiping High Court. The request was for an additional Penolong Kanan Pendafter. Again, YAA informed that this a nationwide problem. However, submission has been made for more judicial officers to the relevant authorities but it is still pending approval.

Thank you.

S. V. NAMASOO
Chairman
Courts Liaison & Civil Practice