The court affirmed that legal fees must be reasonable, taking into account the complexity of the case and the outcomes achieved, while emphasizing transparency in billing practices.

Henry Ho Yit Yao Reg:

[1] The Plaintiff and the Defendant have vide an Order of the High Court ("Consent Order") mutually agreed that invoices bearing nos 000417/012/2023 and 000417/012/2024 ("Previous Invoices"), both issued by the Defendant, be taxed before the Registrar of the High Court. Pursuant to the Consent Order, the matter proceeded to be heard before me.

[2] After hearing both parties, and having perused all the relevant cause papers and/or documents available before me or which that I have access to, I taxed and allowed an amount of RM55,882.00 being the total fees and disbursements vis-à-vis all works done and services provided by the Defendant, to be payable by the Plaintiff.

[3] What follows are my reasons.

Facts Leading To The Issuance Of The Previous Invoices

[4] The Plaintiff ("Former Solicitor") is the former solicitor of the Defendant ("Client"). The cause before me arose out of the Client's dissatisfaction over the professional fees and disbursements charged by the Former Solicitor, which led tothe former having filed an Originating Summons ("OS") against the latter, seeking the Previous Invoices to be taxed.

[5] The solicitor-client relationship between the parties began as early as year 2018. The Client had on 31 December 2018 executed a Warrant to Act appointing and authorising the Former Solicitor to act for her in relation to a claim on behalf of her son vis-à-vis a road accident involving herself (membawa satu prosiding atau tuntutan bagi pihak anak saya berhubung dengan kes kemalangan jalanraya yang melibatkan diri saya) ("Warrant to Act").

[6] From a cursory glance at the Warrant to Act, one will find it rather confusing. However, from the perusal of the relevant police reports and notes of proceedings which were exhibited by the Former Solicitor in its Affidavit in Reply dated 30 May 2024 ("Affidavit in Reply") [note that this Affidavit in Reply was earlier prepared by the Former Solicitor in reply to the Client's Affidavit in Support of the OS dated 18 April 2024 ("Affidavit in Support")], the brief was for the purpose of a civil claim against the driver ("Backhoe Driver") cum owner ("Backhoe Owner") of a backhoe ("Backhoe") in relation to a road accident ("Road Accident") involving the Backhoe Driver cum Backhoe Owner and one Wong Jun Cheng, the biological son of the Client ("Client's Son").

[7] The Road Accident occurred on 29 December 2018 when the Client's Son was hit by the Backhoe, which, at that juncture and before the commencement of the civil suit, purported to have encroached into the lane upon which the Client's Son was riding his motorcycle, and resulted him in serious injury. This led to the filing of a civil suit in the Sessions Court of Shah Alam vide case No. BA-B53KJ-54-09/2019 ("the 2019 Suit"). A search on the Court's e-Filing system will reveal that the 2019 Suit was being brought in the name of the Client's Son.

[8] The Client's Son however succumbed to blood cancer some time after the 2019 Suit being initiated. The Former Solicitor was then being instructed to withdraw the 2019 Suit while the Client obtains a Letter of Administration over the estate of the Client's Son ("the Letter of Administration") from the High Court. An application for the Letter of Administration was subsequently filed vide case No. BA-31 NCvC- 57-01/2021 ("the LA Application").

[9] After being granted the Letter of Administration, the Former Solicitor was instructed to re-initiate the civil claim based on the same Road Accident, now in the name of the Client in the capacity of the mother, dependant and personal representative of the estate of the Client's Son. The second civil suit was filed in the Sessions Court of Shah Alam vide case No BA-B53KJ-28-05/2021 ("the 2021 Suit").

[10] The trial of the 2021 Suit took a total of four days. The learned Sessions Court Judge eventually found the Backhoe Driver and Backhoe Owner ("the 2021 Suit Defendants") to be 100% liable as against the Client's Son over the R