Legal Writing: Malaysia vs Australia

23 Jan

Written By Mikhail Andre Montilla

If you’re an Australian law student coming to Malaysia for an internship, the fastest way to feel confident in week 1 is to realise this:

You already understand the common law thinking style (facts -> issues -> rule -> application).

What changes is the writing culture which include: tone, structure, citations, formality and, very practically, how you “anchor” your argument to procedure (Malaysia: Orders; Australia: Rules + sections).

Below is the “translation guide” we give our Australian interns so they can write in a way Malaysian litigators and judges immediately recognise.

1. The first adjustment: Malaysia writes through “Orders”, Australia writes through “Rules” (and sections)

Malaysia: ROC 2012 is organised by Orders

Malaysian civil procedure is written and cited in Orders under the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012). Your drafting often starts by stating the procedural gateway:

Order 13 (default of appearance to writ)

Order 14 (summary judgment)

Order 18 (pleadings)

Order 24 (discovery and inspection of documents)

Also note the ROC 2012 explicitly frames itself as a procedural code with an overriding objective that parties must help the Court achieve.

Australia: procedure is usually cited by Rule numbers (plus case-management “purpose” sections)

Australia doesn’t speak in “Orders” the same way. You’ll usually cite rules (Federal Court Rules / State UCPR) and sometimes the overarching purpose provisions that shape drafting and case management:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M (overarching purpose)

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 56 (overriding purpose)

2. The “early exit” applications: Malaysian Orders vs Australia Rules

Australian interns pick this up fastest when they see the equivalents side-by-side

3. Tone: Australian clarity, Malaysian courtroom restraint

Australian student default.

Australian writing training pushes you toward:

plain English

confident conclusions

minimal ceremony

Malaysian court-facing tone.

Malaysian litigation writing is usually:

more formal and deferential

less “punchy”

more careful when alleging serious misconduct

Commonly, you’ll see:

“It is respectfully submitted that…”

“With respect…”

“The Defendant denies… save as expressly admitted…”

A simple “translation” example.

Australian-flavoured:

“The defendant clearly breached the contract.”

Malaysia-flavoured:

“It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to make payment by the contractual due date.”

Same meaning - but different courtroom voice.

4. Structure: Malaysia loves navigable, numbered modules

Australian writing often tolerates more narrative flow.

Malaysian court documents typically prefer:

shorter paragraphs

aggressive numbering (including sub-paragraphs)

defined terms (“the Agreement”, “the Impugned Decision”)

headings that sound like issue questions

Why? Because the ROC 2012 is built to be used like a structured code (Orders, rules, forms), and judges expect your writing to be equally easy to index.

5. A pracitical checklist (made for Australia interns)

Before you send any draft in Malaysia, ask:

What am I drafting? pleading / affidavit / submissions

Have I anchored the document to the right procedural gateway? (Malaysia: Order; Australia: rule/section)

Does each legal proposition have an authority + pinpoint?

Are my facts tied to pleadings/exhibits?

Is my tone appropriately restrained and court facing?

The goal: You leave able to write in a Malaysian legal style without losing your Australian clarity.

Mikhail Andre Montilla

First published on lawgistics.com.au. Views are the author’s. Not legal advice.