A client is entitled to compel a solicitor to provide a detailed bill of costs for taxation if the invoice is perceived as excessive or lacking proper itemization.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff filed an application by way of Originating Summons (OS) dated 28 April 2022 (encl 1) under various provisions of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ) and the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) for inter alia, taxation of the Defendant's bill of costs.

[2] The Plaintiff's OS seeks the following reliefs:

2.1. That the Defendant be compelled to prepare or cause the preparation of a detailed bill of costs premised upon the Defendant's invoice dated 8 February 2022 for the sum of RM102,700.00, (Ref No: 453/20/L/K), (the Purported Invoice) within a period of 30 days from the date of this Court Order;

2.2. That the said bill of costs to be referred before the registrar to be taxed on a solicitor-client basis;

2.3. That the Purported Invoice is exorbitant and/or disproportion, for the Defendant's alleged professional services rendered to the Plaintiff in respect of the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur Divorce Petition No WA-33JP-1607-09-2017 (Suit 1607);

2.4. That the Defendant to deliver to the Plaintiff all cause papers, documents, correspondence, files and/or all other matters relating to work done by the Defendant that are within the Defendant's possession in respect of the case under the High Court Petition within 7 days from the date of this Court Order;

2.5. That the Plaintiff agrees to pay to the Defendant any fair and reasonable sum so ordered by the Court to be payable to the Defendant within 30 days pursuant to the taxation of the said bill of costs;

2.6. That pending the outcome of the taxation of the said bill of costs, no proceedings are to be instituted against the Plaintiffs in respect of the Purported Invoice;

2.7. Costs of this OS shall be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff;

2.8. That the Plaintiff is at liberty to apply; and

2.9. Any other and further relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper.

[3] After the hearing, I allowed the Plaintiff's application (Enclosure 1). This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision.

Background Facts

[4] The background facts gathered from the cause papers and submissions by parties can be summarized as follows:

4.1. The Plaintiff is a People's Republic of China national, who resides in Malaysia with her two (2) young Children, named Wang Tian Yi (Owen) and Sean Peter Brown (Sean). In 2017, the Plaintiff and her Ex-Husband were engaged in divorce proceedings and a custody battle for their Children.

4.2. The Defendant is an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya, who predominantly practices family law. The Defendant was also the Plaintiff's former solicitor in Divorce Petition Suit 1607.

4.3. Shortly before the filing of this application, there were five (5) applications which had been made by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's former husband (the Petitioner Husband) at the Divorce Petition Suit 1607 as follows:

(i) Enclosure 13: The Petitioner Husband's application to vary the contents of the Decree Nisi dated 17 October 2017 (the Decree Nisi).

(ii) Enclosure 21: The Petitioner Husband's application for the Appointment of a Professional (whether a psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor or therapist) to