English or Bahasa Melayu in Divorce Cases? Federal Court Clarifies Language Use!
- brandonwong528
- Apr 1
- 2 min read
by MH Law | April 1, 2025 | Case Spotlight
Overview
This the case of Robinder Singh Jaj Bijir Singh v Jasminder Kaur Bhajan Singh [2024], the Federal Court examined whether court documents for divorce or judicial separation could be filed in English without translation into Bahasa Malaysia, given the Registrar’s Circular No. 5 of 1990. It also looked at whether the High Court’s dismissal of an application due to the lack of translation was valid.
Case Background
The appellant filed documents in English for a divorce-related case, relying on a 1990 Registrar’s Circular that allowed English filings until certain laws were translated into Bahasa Malaysia.
The High Court rejected these documents because no translation into Bahasa Malaysia was submitted within the specified time.
The appellant argued that such translations weren’t required under the law governing matrimonial proceedings.
Court Decisions and Reasoning
High Court
The appellant filed documents in English for a divorce-related case, relying on a 1990 Registrar’s Circular that allowed English filings until certain laws were translated into Bahasa Malaysia.
The High Court rejected these documents because no translation into Bahasa Malaysia was submitted within the specified time.
The appellant argued that such translations weren’t required under the law governing matrimonial proceedings.
Court Of Appeal
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision:
It reasoned that the Registrar’s Circular was a guideline without legal standing when it conflicted with the Rules of Court.
The appellate court did not analyze whether the Rules of Court 2012 applied to matrimonial cases specifically.
Federal Court
The Federal Court overturned the lower courts’ decisions:
It found that the Rules of Court 2012 explicitly excluded matrimonial proceedings under the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (Act 164) and the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980 (DMPR).
The Federal Court emphasized that the DMPR, not the Rules of Court 2012, governs matrimonial cases.
The Registrar’s Circular, allowing English filings, was valid and aligned with the law because the relevant rules were still untranslated into Bahasa Malaysia.
Penalizing the appellant for following the Registrar’s Circular violated their rights to justice and fairness under the Federal Constitution.
Key Takeaways
Legal Precedence
The specific rules for matrimonial proceedings (DMPR) take priority over general rules like the Rules of Court 2012.
Registrar’s Circular Validity
Administrative guidelines, like the Registrar’s Circular, remain enforceable if they align with specific legal provisions.
Access to Justice
Courts must balance procedural rules with fairness to ensure access to justice.
Future Implications
This decision affects not only matrimonial cases but also other legal areas where similar circulars apply, such as bankruptcy and company winding-up proceedings.
****
Have a question? Please contact us at info@munhoelaw.com
