Debate by MP For Bandar Sibu, Wong Ho Leng on the Subordinate Courts Act (Amendment) Bill, 2010 in Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday, 7^thJuly 2010:

Debate on the Subordinate Courts Act (Amendment) Bill, 2010

The Subordinate Courts Act (Amendment) Bill, 2010 seeks to increase the monetary jurisdiction of the Sessions Court from the present RM250,000.00 to RM1 million. There is nothing objectionable to this amendment.

However, the Bill also seeks to introduce a new jurisdiction to the Sessions Court, and that is to enable the Sessions Court to hear declaration and injunction cases. These reliefs were previously within the jurisdiction of the High Court.

I want to ask whether the backlog at the High Court is the reason for allowing the Sessions Court to hear declaration and injunction cases?

If that is the reason then the Government should solve the backlogs of cases at the High Court.

I have been practising law for 25 years. On several occasions when lawyers had dialogues with judges, I had raised the concerns of backlogs, including the manner in which cases are disposed in open courts. I believe that backlogs can be reduced and even solved by improving court administration, in particular, training and employing typists and stenographers to take evidence. It is ridiculous to expect High Court judges to be their own typists when their job should be to observe the demeanour of the witnesses and determine whether the witnesses are telling the truth.

If the intention of the Bill is to help reduce the backlog at the High Court, I believe that it will fail. Letting the Sessions Court hear declaration and injunction cases will merely transfer the bottlenecks from the High Court to the Sessions Court.

Please do not "pass the buck" and create a new "bottle-neck" at the Sessions Court.

There is another more important aspect of the judiciary which the Government must consider before passing this Bill. That concerns the training of the Sessions Court Judges.

I have spoken to many lawyers during the last 3 weeks on the amendments proposed in this Bill. Almost all of them are concerned whether the Sessions Court Judges are sufficiently competent? Almost all of them feel that the Sessions Court should not be seized with jurisdiction to hear Declaration and Injunction cases.

Let me give an example involving injunction cases. Before the hearing, the Plaintiff may apply for an interim injunction order. The duty is cast on the Judges to decide whether it is a fit and proper case to grant the interim relief pending the disposal of the case. The interim order may have severe repercussion on the Defendant. I have known of at least 2 companies in Sarawak which were forced to close down because interim injunction orders were granted by the High Court. Yet, these orders were discharged by the Court of Appeal. By then it was too late and damage had been done.

Though we must accept that there are some Sessions Court judges who are sufficiently competent, many lawyers believe that many Sessions Court Judges as of now are not well trained enough to hear declaratory and injunction cases.

Nowadays High Court Registrars are sometimes required to sit as Sessions Court judges in Sarawak. Many of the High Court registrars are fresh from the university, having no practical experience.

When we are talking about key performance index (KPI), how can we have confidence in the performance of fresh untrained registrars hearing injunction cases? How can the people have confidence in the delivery system?

I feel that it is better and more important to improve the delivery system of the judiciary. I have known of cases where court deposits were not released by the courts despite the fact that orders for payment out had been made months ago. I have a case in my hand where the court deposit had not been paid out despite the fact that the Court had ordered payment out some 10 years ago. That is the reason why I am suggesting that it is important to improve delivery system.

I wish to share 2 messages that I received from 2 senior lawyers practising in Sarawak:

1. "Injunctions can have serious consequences on the injuncted party, eg, ex parte Mareva and Anton Pillar and mandatory injunctions. As of now, our Sessions Court Judges are not well trained or competent to handle these actions."

2. "Idea is good if independence and competency can be assured. Declarations of law are usually against Government. Do Sessions Court judges have the courage to decide against the Government when they do not share the same tenure as High Court judges? If the idea is to push cases down simply, then it is a poorly considered cause. That will only result in more appeals."

This Parliament should consider referring this Bill to a Select Committee. There should be consultation with the Bar Council and the Advocate Associations of Sabah and Sarawak.

* Wong Ho Leng , DAP Sarawak State Chairman & MP for Sibu