Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
Judicial reforms in the administration of justice system generally affect the landscape of civil litigation. However, judicial reforms also draw adverse inference on the justice system if certain safeguards are lacking behind or delicate issues of public importance are not emphasized. This study aims at analysing he Malaysian Judiciary Reforms to civil litigation in Malaysia. The method of analysis is based on content analysis. This study indicates that the key catalyst to the success of civil litigation reforms of the Malaysian Judiciary (2008-2011) was contributed by excellent leadership. The study also finds that the Judicial Reforms in relation to management carry qualities that are recognized under established management practices. Nevertheless, the findings also show that there are crucial matters that are not contemplated in the said reform exercise such as the creation of a multi-door courthouse programme, methods to resolve complex civil cases and the plight of unrepresented litigants. Therefore, it is imperative for the Malaysian Judiciary to emphasize on these oversights in its future reform exercise. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n6p428
Highlights
Judicial reforms are essential to restore public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice by improving the quality of judicial service
The Judicial Reforms have brought positive change to how civil litigation is managed in Malaysia, especially in terms of using electronic services
It is important to chart the right course in the aftermath of the Judicial Reform
Summary
Judicial reforms are essential to restore public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice by improving the quality of judicial service. The traditional English Civil Justice System underwent lengthy review. It was reported that there had been no less than 63 reports on issues regarding to the procedural laws prior to the establishment of the Civil Justice Review in 1985 (Darbyshire, 2001). Disputants are more aware of their rights than previously. It is insufficient if the judiciary only commands respect from the government, but not the public (Suffian, 2000). In 2001, the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee issued a memorandum containing resolutions pertaining to the administration of justice in Malaysia. The said memorandum stated the adverse comments from the public and international community on the administration of justice in Malaysia (Memorandum from the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee, 2001). The memorandum included several proposals for reform regarding issues involving the judicial role in mega suits, contempt of court cases, unusual court orders and contempt of court cases
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
