Key Points from Practice Direction 1 of 2020 (Malaysian Civil Court Practice) (2024)

The Chief Judge of Malaya has issued Practice Direction 1 of 2020 on 31 January 2020. They relate to case managements of civil matters. Some key deadlines have been introduced. These are some of the salient points:

1. For a Writ action, as a general rule, the Judge is expected to fix trial dates which are within the period of six months from the date of filing of the Writ. The Judge may exercise discretion in fixing trial dates which are later than that, if more time is needed for compliance of pre-trial directions (filing of Bundle of Pleadings, Bundle of Documents, Agreed Facts, Issues to be Tried, Summary of Case and List of Witnesses).
2. Interlocutory application(s) for a Writ action is to be filed within 14 days from the date of the 1st case management of the Writ action (to be fixed within 30 days from the date the Writ is filed). An exception seems to be for discovery/ interrogatory application(s), which can be made after the 2nd case management (to be fixed within 14 days from the date of close of pleadings).
3. Interlocutory application(s) for a Writ action is to be disposed off by the Court of first instance within a period of 50 days from the date of filing of the interlocutory application.
4. Interlocutory application(s) for an Originating Summons is to be filed within 14 days from the date of the 1st case management for the Originating Summons (which will be within 30 days from the date the Originating Summons is filed). No deadline for disposal of interlocutory applications relating to Originating Summons is set, unlike that for a Writ action.
5. Interlocutory applications for an appeal (from a Subordinate Court to the High Court), e.g. to adduce fresh evidence, are to be filed within 14 days from the date of the 1st case management of the appeal. There is no deadline for the disposal of this interlocutory application, unlike that for a Writ action.
6. Judges and Court Officers (Deputy Registrar/ Senior Assistant Registrar) still retain their respective discretion insofar as timelines are concerned, but this is to be exercised with a view of a speedy, just and economical disposal of cases. In any case, this Practice Direction (coming from the Chief Judge of Malaya with consultation with the Chief Justice), indicates the fresh approach to be undertaken by the Courts, and will guide the Courts, insofar as the relevant timelines are concerned.

Takeaways:

• Advantage Plaintiff. A Plaintiff can, and should, anticipate all trial documents, pleadings, and interlocutory applications to be filed and prepare these (where possible), before an action is filed. The Defendant, naturally being the reactive party, may always be on the back foot (tactically speaking). This would also mean that possibly a lot more preparatory work is to go in before a Plaintiff files its claim.
• Potentially quicker disposal of cases, dispensation of justice and outcomes for the relevant parties (provided the right to a fair trial/ hearing is not compromised for speed). To note that lawyers struggled when the previous nine-month rule and KPI for Judges were introduced about nine years ago. This eventually tapered off, after an unprecedented joint statement was issued by the Bar and the Judiciary. More information on this here.
• Based on an article from The Edge dated 9 January 2020 (see here), it was reported that Chief Justice Tengku Maimun has observed that "many cases are delayed due to the snowballing of interlocutory applications, which has clogged up the judiciary". There was then a suggestion to limit appeals on interlocutory applications, which is still at the discussion stage between the judiciary, the Bar and Attorney General's Chambers. Until that happens (if at all), it appears that this Practice Direction is aimed at speeding up the disposal of interlocutory applications, and to minimise said snowballing effect.

Read and download the full Practice Direction here.