SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 949

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SUBBAIYAMMAH KANNA NAIDU – Appellant
Versus
TETUAN GEETHAN RAM – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Muhammad Ashrul Haikal Ashri ,Respondent Advocate: Lavanyia Raja

JUDGMENT

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top