HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SUBBAIYAMMAH KANNA NAIDU – Appellant
Versus
TETUAN GEETHAN RAM – Respondent
[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
Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. v. Timor Electric Cable & Wire Sdn. Bhd. & Ors
Thirupathy Muniandy v. Bintumathy Ramakrishnan
Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v. Public Bank Bhd
Siew Kuen Williams v. Yong Siew In
United Malayan Banking Corp. Bhd. v. Sykt. Perumahan Luas Sdn. Bhd
Lee Hiok Ping & Ors v. Lee Hiok Woon & Lee Hiok Tng & Ors
Golden Star & Ors v. Ling Peek Hoe & Anor & Another Appeal
Toh Theam Hock v. Kemajuan Perwira Management Corp. Sdn. Bhd
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.