To Members and Pupils in Chambers,

RE: COURTESY CALL ON THE IPOH HIGH COURT JUDGES, JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS TO DISCUSS ISSUES RAISED BY THE LAWYERS IN RESPECT OF CIVIL LAW PRACTICE 

We refer to the above matter.

The Perak Bar Committee’s courtesy call with the Ipoh High Court Judges, Judicial Commissioner and the Judicial Officers was held on 30.4.2025. In the said meeting issues of common interest were raised to ensure that the proceedings in the Ipoh High Courts proceeded smoothly and in compliance with the law. Herein below, we set out the issues raised by both sides and the consensus reached.

1. FIRST DATE GIVEN BY COURT IS TOO LONG AFTER FILING OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS (OS) FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION (LA) & GRANT OF PROBATE MATTERS

One firm had raised the issue that the first date given by court after filing the Originating Summons (OS) for Letters of Administration (the “OS”) is around 2 months and requested that it be shortened to at least 4 weeks. The judicial officers concerned responded that the delay is due to the fact that there are only two Deputy Registrars handling all Letters of Administration (LA) and Grant of Probate applications. One Deputy Registrar due to her workload only handles all application with registration “code number 1” whereas the other Deputy Registrar handles the rest of the applications. According to the court, applications for LA and Grant of Probate have increased tremendously due partly to counsels preference to apply to the High Courts for it rather than the land office. There are also counsels instead of filing the OS in Taiping High Court (being the correct forum) are filing it in Ipoh High Court. However, the Deputy Registrars took cognizance of the complaint and will endeavour to shorten the time frame for the first date. Counsels are advised to refrain from filing the OS in Ipoh High Courts if the correct forum is Taiping High Court.

2. USAGE OF LIFT IN IPOH HIGH COURT

The issue of lift usage by lawyers and members of the public in the Ipoh High Court premises was raised once again for clarification in the light of a memo dated 16.10.2024 by the Deputy Registrar which stated that the lift is only for the Judges of the High Court, the judicial officers and staff. Although such a directive exists, it was agreed that members of the Bar and the public due to age, infirmity or disability or other medical or non- medical reasons finding it difficult to negotiate the stairs can still use the lift situated at the back portion of the building after informing the receptionist (Ms Atikah) at the counter who will seek permission from the Deputy Registrar. While using the lift members are advised to observe certain etiquettes such as always giving way to Judges to use the lift first and not to get into the lift with the Judges and so forth. We hope members will use this privilege wisely.

3. APPOINTMENT TO SEE JUDICIAL OFFICERS (DEPUTY REGISTRARS AND SENIOR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 

We were informed that it has become a norm for counsels to appear without appointment before Judicial Officers with a view to discussing or clarifying issues in pending cases. The Judicial Officers requested that without appointment it would be difficult for them to respond to issues raised as they will not have the file concern. As such, hence forth, if the need arises to discuss or clarify any issues or matters with the Judicial Officers, the counsel concern must first sent a letter via the e-filing system seeking an appointment and in the said letter the issue to be raised and / or clarified must be set out. If the need arises to see any Judicial Officers as regards matter other than cases pending in court the appointment can be sought by way of an email.

4. REQUEST FOR ZOOM HEARING

His Lordship Justice Moses Soosayan requested that despite the directive from Putrajaya that all hearing must be physical, His Lordship is prepared to hear by way of zoom if all the parties make an official request.

5. CONDUCT OF COUNSELS IN COURT

The Judges intimated that although most counsels conducted themselves well but there were still instances where there is a failure to adhere to court etiquette. For instance, there are still counsels who address the High Court Judges as “Tuan” or “Puan”. We urge counsels to be mindful when addressing the High Court Judges to use the terms My Lord, My Lady, His Lordship, Her Ladyship or Yang Arif. Another instance was where a counsel continuously tried to interject when the Judge was speaking despite the Judge’s indication to the said counsel to refrain from doing so. Etiquette requires that counsel must wait for the appropriate moment to speak with the permission of the Judge.

Kindly take note of the above to avoid any unpleasant incidents.

Regards.

S.V.NAMASOO

Chairman

Courts Liaison & Civil Practice

Perak Bar