The Malaysian Bar’s International Malaysia Law Conference (“IMLC”) 2026 took place from 27 to 30 Oct 2026 at MITEC, Kuala Lumpur.
By O Ying Xin, Advocate and Solicitor, Lee & Poh Partnership
The session “What Judges Want” explored what judges expect of advocates today. The panel addressed the topic from every level of the courts. Justice Dato’ Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James spoke from the perspective of the High Court; Justice Datuk Wong Kian Kheong from the Court of Appeal; and Justice Dato’ Seri Vazeer Alam b Mydin Meera from the Federal Court. Lavinia Kumaraendran, Chairperson of the Bar Council Advocacy Training Committee, offered counsel's perspective. Brendan Navin Siva, former Chairman of the International Advocacy Training Council in Hong Kong moderated the session.
Part 1: Importance of a Well-Structured Written Submission
The panel began by addressing the importance of written advocacy. The panel agreed that structure is what judges look for in a well-written submission. Each judge explained what this means at their level of court.
At the High Court, Justice Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James explained that structure gives a submission direction. It tells the judge how counsel has broken down the argument and provides a roadmap of where counsel intends to go. Without structure, the judge is left to work out what points counsel is trying to make. His Lordship highlighted that a well-structured submission should have headings and subheadings.
At the Court of Appeal, Justice Wong Kian Kheong shared that counsel should recognise that an appeal against findings of fact calls for a different approach from an appeal against the exercise of discretion, where the scope for appellate intervention is narrower. Even where counsel shows an error of fact or law, counsel must explain whether the error materially affected the decision. Finally, counsel should not overlook remedies, including consequential relief which the appellate court has the power to grant.
At the Federal Court, Justice Vazeer Alam b Mydin Meera observed that counsel often conflate submissions for leave to appeal with submissions on the appeal proper. A leave application asks why the court should hear the appeal, whilst the appeal proper asks why the appeal should succeed. His Lordship stressed that a leave application is not an appeal in miniature. His Lordship expects counsel to do three things. First, identify which statutory gateway under section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 they rely on, namely a question of novelty, a question of general principle of public advantage or a constitutional question. Second, state the question of law without a long recital of the facts below. Third, explain how the Federal Court’s answer to that question would affect the decision of the court below.
From the counsel’s perspective, Lavinia Kumaraendran recommended that advocates reverse their usual method of preparation. Instead of gathering every fact and authority and fitting them into a submission, counsel should start with three questions — consider what the judge needs to decide, what counsel’s strongest point is, and what must be established for the judge to decide in the client’s favour. In this regard, she also offered two practical tips. First, ask a colleague who is unfamiliar with the case to read the draft submission. Second, return to the draft after a day or two with a fresh mind and ask what each paragraph achieves. A paragraph that achieves nothing does not assist the court and should be removed.
Part 2: One Important Skill for Written Advocacy
Justice Wong Kian Kheong shared that being “comprehensive” is key. The Appellant’s submission is the first document his Lordship reads on an appeal which shapes both his Lordship’s preliminary view and the panel’s discussion. His Lordship emphasised that being comprehensive does not mean being lengthy.
Justice Vazeer Alam b Mydin Meera described being “concise” as a hallmark of good advocacy and cautioned counsel not to confuse length with strength. His Lordship pointed out that a Court of Appeal panel may hear seven matters in a day and that a judge’s attention inevitably drops as lengthy submissions pile up. His Lordship advised counsel to identify the real issues, the governing principles and their application and to leave out the rest.
Justice Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James explained that “clarity” is important. Judges do not have the luxury of time to scrutinise every word in a written submission to work out what it means. When a point is unclear, the judge moves on and counsel loses the chance to persuade on it. Therefore, his Lordship asked counsel not to file a first draft or a second draft that has only been corrected for spelling and grammar. Instead, judges look for a purposefully edited written submission in which the sentences are crystallised in the clearest way possible.
Lavinia Kumaraendran reminded advocates that “comprehensiveness” includes dealing with their weakest point, because an unanswered point leaves a gap for the opponent. Before drafting, counsel should list the issues they want the judge to decide and check that the submission answers each of them. She also highlighted that judicial time is limited; hence, “conciseness” is important. She urged counsel to keep the language plain, noting that greater detail does not necessarily mean greater accuracy and that a submission should be interesting but not flowery. Lastly, for “clarity”, she recommended informative headings rather than generic ones such as “background facts” to make the submission more engaging.
Part 3: Important Points in Oral Advocacy
Justice Wong Kian Kheong described oral submission as counsel’s last opportunity to persuade the panel. His Lordship advised counsel to start with their strongest point and suggested asking the panel at the outset whether any question is troubling the panel.
Justice Vazeer Alam b Mydin Meera added that “with written submissions, you are already in court before you walk into the court”. Judges would have read the written submissions and formed a preliminary view. Hence, his Lordship urged counsel not to use the hearing to repeat the facts at length but to bring out the essentials of the case.
Justice Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James urged counsel to get to the point by making it at the start and only then refer to the evidence and the law that support it. His Lordship described a common mistake whereby counsel often begins by reading documents or notes of evidence and let the point emerge gradually which leaves the judge working out the argument while counsel reads.
Lavinia Kumaraendran provided three tips. First, identify the one strongest point that would win the case. Second, instead of taking the judge immediately through documents and evidence, counsel should state the proposition, refer to the evidence and the law and then conclude. Third, prioritise arguments as not every argument deserves equal attention. Repetition does not necessarily reinforce persuasion.
Justice Vazeer Alam b Mydin Meera also addressed the use of authorities. His Lordship noted that with digital filing, judges no longer see the physical size of a bundle, but they can see when counsel has filed five volumes of authorities and then refers to only a handful. His Lordship highlighted quality over quantity of authorities. Counsel should explain what a case decided and how its ratio applies and then take the court to the relevant passage. His Lordship warned counsel against relying on headnotes or on database search results without reading the judgment. In his Lordship’s words, “a competent advocate knows the authorities, a good advocate understands the authorities, and an exceptional advocate knows which authority matters, why it matters and when to stop citing the authorities”.
Justice Wong Kian Kheong shared his own approach to a question of law. His Lordship first asks whether a Malaysian decision has decided the point as part of its ratio decidendi, and then whether Commonwealth courts have considered comparable legislation.
Part 4: Preparation Allows Counsel to Deal with Questions from the Bench
The final part of the session dealt with questions from the Bench. The panel used a live poll in the room to ask the audience how they respond when a judge interrupts with a question during submissions.
Justice Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James explained that gone are the days when counsel submit in the conventional way whereby the applicant submits, the respondent responds, and the applicant replies. Nowadays, judges have read the written submissions and come to the hearing with questions. A question tells counsel where the court’s concern lies. It gives counsel the chance to clarify the evidence or a legal proposition and to resolve the judge’s doubt. His Lordship advised counsel not to prepare by rehearsing the written submission but by anticipating the judge’s questions and examining the weaknesses in their own case and the strengths in their opponent’s.
Justice Wong Kian Kheong shared three reasons why his Lordship asks questions during a hearing. First, where a point decisive of the appeal was not raised below, fairness requires the court to invite counsel to address it. Second, his Lordship may have a genuine doubt that needs counsel to resolve. Lastly, his Lordship may have been unable to persuade the other members of the panel during their discussion and may look to counsel to do so.
Justice Vazeer Alam b Mydin Meera shared his Lordship’s experience in which the panel, having read the submissions, asked counsel to address some specific points. However, counsel was unable to depart from his prepared script to answer them. Therefore, his Lordship advised counsel to listen to the panel’s questions, think about them and answer them directly. His Lordship described modern appellate advocacy as an informed dialogue and not an uninterrupted oration. His Lordship added that the ability to answer difficult questions from the Bench demonstrates counsel’s mastery of the case.
In conclusion, the panel’s guidance on written advocacy can be summed up in the three Cs — comprehensive, concise and clear. Written submissions should address every material issue without being lengthy, keep to the essentials and state each point plainly. While oral advocacy is not a regurgitation of the written submission. Counsel must be able to anticipate questions from the Bench, as modern advocacy is an informed dialogue with the Bench and not an uninterrupted oration.
*This article reports on Breakout Session 10, Stream B: Legal Profession and Professional Practice.