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

2023 MarsdenLR 83

MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA PULAU PINANG
TETUAN MANJIT & CO LWN. KHOR OOI TIT
[Rayuan Sivil No: PA-12A-38-09/2022]



Petitioner Advocates:Manjit Singh Ram Singh ,Respondent Advocate: Eda Nurul Hanani Md Daud

The court clarified that 'getting up fees' are appealable under the CJA, emphasizing the importance of the adjudicated sum in determining the right to appeal.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the appeal against the decision of the lower court to dismiss a motion concerning 'getting up fees' under Section 28 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. The court determined that the amount in dispute must be interpreted strictly as the adjudicated sum, not the claimed sum, while adhering to the precedents established in previous significant rulings. The appeal was ultimately dismissed without an order for costs, affirming that 'getting up fees' are indeed appealable subject to the statutory provisions concerning the jurisdiction on monetary limits.

Table of Content
1. the judgment originates from an appeal regarding the rights of 'getting up fees'. (Para 1 , 2)
2. issues regarding the appeal's admissibility under s 28 of the cja were highlighted. (Para 3 , 4 , 6)
3. clarification of monetary amounts in dispute was critical to determining appeal rights. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14)
Azizan Md Arshad PK:

Pengenalan

[1] Ini adalah rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah ini yang membenarkan bantahan awal Responden dan membatalkan rayuan Perayu ini atas isu ianya bertentangan dan dihalang oleh s 28 Akta Kehakiman 1964 ("CJA").

[2] Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan Kandungan 29 iaitu Bil Kos yang difailkan oleh Perayu [Tetuan Manjit & Co] untuk menaksirkan kos atas dasar peguam dan anak guam. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah membenarkan sebanyak RM10,000.00 daripada jumlah RM40,000 yang dipohon oleh Peguam Perayu sebagai "getting up fees". Peguam Perayu telah merayu kepada Mahkamah ini terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Yang Bijaksana. Kedudukan Pihak-pihak dirujuk sebagaimana mereka di Mahkamah Tinggi.

Isu-Isu

[3] Sebelum Mahkamah mendengar kepada merit rayuan, terdapat bantahan awal daripada Peguam Responden. Mahkamah telah menjemput pihak-pihak untuk berhujah lanjut berkaitan isu-isu yang dibangkitkan.

(i) Sama ada "geeting up fees" merupakan kos dan tidak boleh dirayu

(ii) Sama ada s 28 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 ("CJA") terpakai.

Analisa Mahkamah

(i) Sama Ada Kos "Getting Up Fees" Merupakan Kos Dan Tidak Boleh Dirayu

[4] Dalam kes ini jumlah penghakiman yang dirayu adalah "getting up fees" kepada peguam dan ianya bukan "kos" seperti mana kos yang telah diberikan dalam prosiding biasa.

[5] Mahkamah ini merujuk kepada ss 27 dan 28 CJA 1964 (dipetik dalam Bahasa Inggeris) sebagai panduan.

(a) Seksyen 27 dan s 28 CJA

Appellate civil jurisdiction

The appellate civil jurisdiction of the High Court shall consist of the hearing of appeals from subordinate courts as hereinafter provided.

(b) 28 Civil appeals from subordinate courts

(1) No appeal shall lie to the High Court in any of the following cases:

(a) subject to any other written law, from a decision of a subordinate Court in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter is ten thousand ringgit or less except on a question of law;

(b) where a subordinate Court dismissed any application for a summary judgment;

(c) where a subordinate Court dismissed any application to strike out any writ or pleading; and

(d) where a subordinate Court allowed any application to set aside a judgment in default.

[6] Peguam Perayu telah membuat perbandingan s 28 CJA dengan s 68 CJA. Mahkamah ini bersetuju dengan Peguam Perayu Yang Bijaksana bahawa "getting up fees "boleh dirayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi. Ini adalah kerana dalam s 68 CJA, berbeza dengan s 28 CJA. Di dalam s 68 CJA secara terang- terangan dinyatakan "kos", sekiranya hendak dirayu mestilah mendapat kebenaran daripada Mahkamah Rayuan. Ringkasan kepada s 68 CJA 1964 ini diterangkan dalam kes Malaysian Bunkers System Sdn Bhd v. Zainal Fikri Hj Ahmad And Anor , [2008] 2 MLJ 340, di mana diputuskan seperti berikut:

"[24] For purposes of completeness, pursuant to s 68(1)(c) or equipollent provisions, the principles enunciated in the above authorities may be stated as follows:

1. As a general rule, no appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal where the judgment or order relates to costs only, which by law are left to the discretion of the Court, except with the leave of the Court of Appeal.

2. By way of exceptions, s 68(1)(c) would admit an appeal:

(a) where the appeal involves a question of law and principle;

(b) where the appeal in relation to costs is only part of a larger appeal against the order which allows the claim ie where the appeal was not in relation to costs only; or

(c) where the appeal concerns a genuine complaint, not only about costs, but also about other matters, in which case the Court has full jurisdiction to deal with both the costs and other matters, and

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 Back to top