Seng San Bing v Satin Straits Sdn. Bhd. (WA-37J-17-03/2024)

The sole issue, in essence, before me is whether the Registrar may rectify any information entered in the Court’s e-Filing system (“EFS”) if the Registrar is satisfied that such information is erroneous pursuant to Order 63A rule 15(3) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”) which reads as follows: “O. 63A Electronic filing …

Discrepancy (O. 63A r. 15) …

If the Registrar is satisfied that for any reason whatsoever, that the information entered into the Court's computer system is erroneous, he may cause the information in the Court's computer system to be rectified accordingly.”. Brief Facts

Jaimie Sia Zui Keng (“Jaimie”) is a director of the Judgment Debtor, Satin Straits Sdn Bhd (“SSSB”). Jaimie at all times is represented by Messrs Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill (“LHAG”) as can be seen from, inter-alia, - i. The Notice of Appointment of Solicitors dated 25-03-2024 filed by LHAG which states LHAG is appointed to act as solicitors for Jaimie [IC No xxx], a director of SSSB, the Judgment Debtor in this action. [See Enclosure 4]; and ii. The Judgment Debtor Summons [“JDS”] order dated 24-06-

[See Enclosure 29].

However, LHAG’s clerk had wrongly entered in the EFS that LHAG is acting for the “Defendant” i.e. SSSB, and not for the “Aggrieved Party/Pihak Terkilan”.

By an application dated 22-10-2024 to the Senior Assistant Registrar (“SAR”), Jamie applied to rectify the error. [Enclosure 42].

For reasons best known to counsel for the Judgment Creditor, the Judgment Creditor opposed the application despite knowing full well from, inter-alia, the Notice of Appointment of Solicitors filed by LHAG that LHAG acts for Jaimie.

On 13-01-2025, the SAR allowed the rectification application with no order as to costs [“Rectification Order”]. The Judgment Creditor appealed to me sitting as a High Court Judge in Chambers. (Enclosure 75).

On 14-05-2025, I dismissed the appeal with costs of RM 3,000 subject to allocatur. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted by the Court of Appeal on 10-09-2025. These are my Grounds of Decision.

SSSB failed to pay a judgment for RM 80,917.37 granted in favour of the Judgment Creditor.

Jaimie at the material time was a director of SSSB. By the JDS, Jaimie was summoned to be examined on the ability of SSSB to satisfy payment of the judgment sum.

Jaimie decided to appoint his own personal solicitors to act for him. He therefore appointed LHAG. LHAG proceeded to file the Notice of Appointment of Solicitors to act for Jaimie. [Enclosure 4].

However, when Enclosure 4 was filed, LHAG’s clerk had inadvertently selected “defendant” as the party that LHAG represents on EFS. He should have been selected “Aggrieved Party/Pihak Terkilan”.

The clerk Muhammad Aqmal Zaqwan Bin Ridhwan Chen has since filed an affidavit under Enclosure 44 to explain his error in paragraphs 3 to 5.

On 13-01-2025 the SAR had allowed the rectification application with no order as to costs. The Judgment Creditor appealed to me. Grounds of appeal of the Judgment Creditor

The Judgment Creditor’s grounds of appeal [as set out in Enclosure 86 JC written submissions] are-i. The Rectification Order has the effect of circumventing and altering the JDS Order when the learned Registrar was functus officio [See paragraphs 19 - 23 Enclosure 86]; ii. The learned SAR is plainly wrong to grant the Rectification Order which is essentially a backdoor appeal against the JDS Order [See paragraphs 24 - 26 Enclosure 86]; iii. The learned SAR had manifestly erred by altering her own unquestionable judicial records glaringly against the trite principles of res judicata [See paragraphs 27 - 30 Enclosure 86]; and iv. The learned SAR’s had committed a grave error in allowing rectification without any legal authority. [See paragraphs 31 - 40 Enclosure 86].

I shall now consider the grounds of appeal one by one. Ground of appeal 1 - The Rectification Order has the effect of circumventing and altering the JDS Order when the learned Registrar was functus officio [See paragraphs 19 - 23 Enclosure 86]

This ground is with respect a serious misunderstanding of the law on the part of counsel for the Judgment Creditor. The Rectification Order only makes it clear that LHAG is representing Jamie. It does not change the fact that SSSB is still compelled to make the payment ordered under the JDS Order. The JDS Order is still valid and enforceable against SSSB.

I hold that Ground of appeal [1] is devoid of merits. Ground of appeal 2 - The learned SAR is plainly wrong to grant the Rectification Order which is essentially a backdoor appeal against the JDS Order [See paragraphs 24 - 26 Enclosure 86]

In my view, the Rectification Order only makes it clear that LHAG is representing Jamie. It does not change the fact that SSSB is still compelled to make the payment ordered under the JDS Order. The JDS Order is still valid and enforceable against SSSB.

I hold that Ground of appeal [2] is devoid of merits. Ground of appeal 3 - The learned SAR had manifestly erred by altering her own unquestionable judicial records glaringly against the trite principles of res judicata [See paragraphs 27 - 30 Enclosure 86] Ground of appeal 4 - The learned SAR’s had committed a grave error in allowing rectification without any legal authority. [See paragraphs 31 - 40 Enclosure 86]

I shall consider Grounds of appeal [3] and [4] together.

Counsel for the Judgment Creditor cites Inspector-General Of Police & Anor v Alan Noor Bin Kamat [1987] 1 MLRA 410, SC and Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v Kawal Teliti Sdn. Bhd. [1995] 3 CLJ 783, SC for her proposition that res judicata prevents the clerk’s mistake from being rectified.

With respect, this is a serious misunderstanding of the law on the part of counsel for the Judgment Creditor. Order 63A ROC which deals with Electronic Filing has expressly provided in rule 15(3) of the ROC that errors in the information entered on EFS can be rectified if the Registrar is satisfied that for any reason whatsoever that the information entered into the Court's computer system is erroneous.

Order 63A rule 15(3) of the ROC reads as follows: “O. 63A Electronic filing …

Discrepancy (O. 63A r. 15) …

If the Registrar is satisfied that for any reason whatsoever, that the information entered into the Court's computer system is erroneous, he may cause the information in the Court's computer system to be rectified accordingly.”.

I hold that Grounds of appeal [3] and [4] are devoid of merits.

For the reasons above, I dismiss the appeal with costs of RM 3,000 subject to allocatur. Dated: 13th October 2025 …………(signed)…………….. Leong Wai Hong Judge High Court of Malaya Kuala Lumpur (NCC 6) Counsel for Judgment Creditor: Boo Honn Chin. O S Kim & Associates (Kuala Lumpur) Counsel for Aggrieved Party: Andrea Chew Mei Yng and Lim Qian Wen. Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill (Kuala Lumpur) CASES REFERRED TO: 1) Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v Kawal Teliti Sdn. Bhd. [1995] 3 CLJ 783, SC. 2) Inspector-General Of Police & Anor v Alan Noor Bin Kamat [1987] 1 MLRA 410, SC. LEGISLATION REFERRED TO: 1) Rules of Court 2012, Order 63A rule 15(3).