When a Senior Assistant Registrar's direction becomes personal and retaliatory

Senior lawyer Megat Shaharuddin Merican hopes the judiciary provides better structured training to Senior Assistant Registrars by inculcating the need for critical thinking as opposed to the apparent regurgitation of the law without understanding context.

This is another courtroom parody I believe worth sharing and revolves around my appearance some months back before a Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) at the Kuala Lumpur Civil High Court.

Allow me to set the scene. On Dec 18, 2025, I appeared before a SAR for a very exciting ex parte application filed by my client, the Administrator to the deceased’s estate, for the purpose of amending the List of Assets and Liabilities appended to the Grant of Letters of Administration.

It being ex parte meant that the quorum comprised just me, the SAR, together with whatever endearing personality she decided to bring to court for the day. In support of the application was the affidavit by the Administrator, which referred to an Agreement duly exhibited (in accordance with Order 41, Rule 11, Rules of Court 2012) and entered into by the same, the deceased’s father, and another party, with the Recital (as stated therein) explaining why the amendments were necessary.

Unsatisfied, the SAR directed that specific parts of the Recital be reproduced in a separate document altogether, explicitly in an Afidavit Lanjutan (Further Affidavit). I openly questioned the veracity of that direction as it made no legal sense whatsoever as the reasons in the Recital had already been deposed as true, so to do so again albeit in a different format would bring no additional value to the application.

The young SAR, apparently still seething from my previous encounter with her where I successfully challenged her egregious direction in an ex parte probate application (before a High Court Judge in chambers – a story for another time perhaps), was clearly not going to allow a greying over-the-hill lawyer to have the better of her for the second time round and stood officiously firm.

To prevent what I saw as a potential meltdown, I obliged and on Dec 31, 2025, I appeared again before the same SAR with the Afidavit Lanjutan duly filed, but cheekily stating therein that the Administrator could not comprehend the soundness of the SAR’s direction (mentioned her by name) but nevertheless agreed to oblige in the interest of closure.

In hindsight, that was clearly poor strategy on my part, and the SAR went off on a tirade with her pupils very much dilated with fury and made even more pronounced by her thick glasses.

After the administrative venting, she fixed Jan 19 for me to submit before the presiding High Court Judge and to explain to her why I objected to the filing of the Afidavit Lanjutan.

This was when we entered the realm of the bizarre and clearly one which was not based on the soundness of law but which suggested that the SAR was by then getting very personal and retaliatory in nature.

On referring matters before the Judge, I am mindful of Order 32, Rule 10, Rules of Court 2012, which reads as follows: “The Registrar [includes SAR] may refer to a Judge any matter which he thinks should properly be decided by a Judge, and the Judge may either dispose of the matter or refer it back to the Registrar, as the case may be, with such directions as he thinks fit.”

In essence, a matter is only referred to the Judge from the SAR if the SAR is not able to decide on the matter herself.

Clearly here there was no reason to refer the matter to the Judge as the Administrator did file the Afidavit Lanjutan as directed even though objections were averred in the same.

That said, I did on Jan 19 appear before the Judge for the purpose mentioned. The Judge was genuinely curious how a simple ex parte matter was made to drag needlessly and sought my explanation.

After some 20 minutes of back and forth, the Judge granted order-in-terms though not before correctly but politely chastising me over the unnecessary paragraph in the Afidavit Lanjutan, which according to her exacerbated the situation though equally acknowledging that there were shortcomings also from her SAR.

I understand that as lawyers we always have to be at our best behaviour in matters we conduct, but I have grown increasingly frustrated and less patient (more so after having passed the 60 year milestone) by what I see as a growing failure by SARs to try to even understand basic law specifically in the area of my practice but instead being fixated with pedantry and the need to see that their internal checklist for any particular application is blindly followed to a “T”.

Moving forward, it is my hope that the judiciary provides better structured training to these future judges by inculcating the need for critical thinking as opposed to the apparent regurgitation of the law without understanding context.

Until then, I would simply be happy not to chance upon this SAR again and am sure that that feeling is mutual.

The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent that of Twentytwo13.