Wrong e-filing code not grounds to strike out lawsuit, rules High Court

 The Melaka High Court revives a family's medical negligence suit, ruling that innocent administrative mistakes should be corrected.

Judicial Commissioner K Raja Segaran observed that striking out the suit could have exposed the plaintiffs to limitation issues and deprived them of the opportunity to have their negligence claim heard on its merits. (Facebook pic)

MELAKA:

The High Court here has ruled that a lawsuit cannot be struck out merely because it was registered under the wrong electronic filing case code.

The court held that such an error is an administrative irregularity that can be corrected by the court registry and does not invalidate the proceedings.

Judicial Commissioner K Raja Segaran made the ruling when allowing an appeal by a family whose medical negligence suit had been struck out at the first case management because it had been filed under an incorrect electronic case classification code.

The suit was filed by Ridzwan Damiri Najli, a minor and person of unsound mind, through his father and litigation representative, Najli Yakob.

Najli and his wife, Arbae’yah, are also plaintiffs, suing in their own right and as administrators of the estate of their younger son, Haziq Damiri Najli, who died in July 2023.

They are suing the attending medical officer, the Melaka Hospital and the government for alleged medical negligence.

According to the statement of claim, the family took Ridzwan, 14, to the hospital on June 20, 2023, after he exhibited increasingly disturbing behaviour, including violent outbursts, trance-like episodes, and attempts to strangle his relatives.

They claimed that he was not admitted for urgent psychiatric observation or referred for immediate specialist treatment.

About two weeks later, Ridzwan allegedly strangled younger brother Haziq at their home. Haziq died from neck compression caused by manual strangulation.

Ridzwan was subsequently admitted for psychiatric evaluation and diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The family contends that the defendants’ failure to provide timely psychiatric treatment resulted in the tragedy.

Raja Segaran stressed that the appeal before him was confined to the procedural issue of whether the suit could be dismissed for having been registered under the wrong electronic filing code.

He said the court was not deciding whether the defendants were negligent.

He also held that a case registration code forms part of the court’s administrative machinery and has no bearing on the court’s jurisdiction, the parties’ substantive rights, or the validity of the proceedings.

An incorrect code, he said, amounted at most to an administrative irregularity that could readily be corrected by the registry.

He said the Rules of Court 2012 favour curing procedural defects rather than defeating legal claims on technical grounds.

“Striking out an action because of an innocent filing mistake runs contrary to the overriding objective of ensuring that disputes are decided on their merits instead of technicalities,” he said.

Raja Segaran restored the writ and statement of claim, ruling that the action remained valid from its original filing date of June 18, 2026.

He said that if the registry considered another case code more appropriate, it should simply amend the classification administratively without affecting the validity of the proceedings.

The judge observed that striking out the suit could have exposed the plaintiffs to limitation issues and deprived them of the opportunity to have their negligence claim heard on its merits.

He cautioned, however, that the decision does not protect parties who deliberately abuse the electronic filing system. - FMT