JUDGMENT

Leong Wai Hong J:

Decision

[Enclosure 75 - Rectify Information Entered In The Court 's E-Filing System]

Issue

[1] 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 O 63A r 15(3) of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC") which reads as follows:

"O 63A Electronic filing ...

15. Discrepancy (O 63A r 15)

...

(3) If the registrar is satisfied that for any reason whatsoever, 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

[2] 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 March 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 encl 4]; and

ii. The Judgment Debtor Summons ["JDS"] order dated 24 June 2024. [See encl 29].

[3] However, LHAG's clerk had wrongly entered in the EFS that LHAG is acting for the "defendant" ie SSSB, and not for the "Aggrieved Party/Pihak Terkilan".

[4] By an application dated 22 October 2024 to the Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR"), Jaimie applied to rectify the error. [Enclosure 42].

[5] 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.

[6] On 13 January 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].

[7] On 14 May 2025, I dismissed the appeal with costs of RM3,000.00 subject to allocatur. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted by the Court of Appeal on 10 September 2025. These are my Grounds of Decision.

Background Facts

[8] SSSB failed to pay a judgment for RM80,917.37 granted in favour of the judgment creditor.

[9] 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.

[10] 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].

[11] However, when encl 4 was filed, LHAG's clerk had inadvertently selected "defendant" as the party that LHAG represents on EFS. He should have selected "Aggrieved Party/Pihak Terkilan".

[12] The clerk Muhammad Aqmal Zaqwan Bin Ridhwan Chen has since filed an affidavit under encl 44 to explain his error in paras 3 to 5.

[13] On 13 January 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

[14] The Judgment Creditor's grounds of appeal [as set out in encl 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 paras 19 - 23 encl 86];

ii. The learned SAR is plainly wrong to grant the Rectification Order which is essentially a backdoor appeal against the JDS Order [See paras 24 - 26 encl 86];

iii. The learned SAR had manifestly erred by altering her own unquestionable judicial records glaringly against the trite principles of res judicata [See paras 27 - 30 encl 86]; and

iv. The learned SAR had committed a grave error in allowing rectification without any legal authority. [See paras 31 - 40 encl 86].

[15] I shall now consider the grounds of appeal one by one.

Ground Of Appeal 1 - The Re