THE Melaka High Court's refusal to immediately record a proposed RM1.7 mil settlement involving a severely disabled road accident victim was, in my view, a legally principled decision. Free Malaysia Today reported that Sultan Nur Mohamad suffered severe traumatic brain injuries and permanent disabilities following a motorcycle accident on March 2, 2024. His wife, Sharifah Nizamuddin, acted as his litigation representative. The Sessions Court later awarded Sultan RM1.87 mil in damages, interest and costs after finding the motorcycle rider wholly liable and the registered owner vicariously liable. During the appeal, however, the parties agreed to settle for RM1.7 mil, with a further RM170,000 proposed as costs. Judicial Commissioner K. Raja Segaran declined simply to endorse the agreement. That was the correct approach. This was not an ordinary commercial settlement between parties capable of protecting their own interests. Sultan's severe injuries meant he could not manage his affairs independently. The court therefore had a protective responsibility under the Rules of Court 2012. Order 76 Rule 10 requires court approval for any compromise involving a person under disability, while Order 22B Rule 7 makes clear that such a settlement is not binding until approval is obtained. The litigation representative's consent is necessary, but it...