The court confirmed that section 121(1)(b) of the LPA allows for taxation of a gross sum bill irrespective of timelines imposed by other provisions, when specific statutory conditions are met.

Introduction

[1] The application before me [Enclosure 17] concerns the right of a court litigant to tax his solicitors' bill under s 121(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (" LPA ") on the ground that the fees charged by his solicitors is excessive.

[2] The Defendant solicitors in this case ["Tetuan Syed Ibrahim & Co"] opposed the application on the ground that the Plaintiff their client ["Fintree"] had lost the right to challenge their bill as the deadlines to challenge under s 126(1) and 128 of the LPA had expired.

[3] One would have thought that these three sections would not pose such difficulties in interpretation. But they do as will be seen when I analyse the decided cases.

[4] I had allowed Fintree's application on 7 March 2023. Tetuan Syed Ibrahim & Co has filed an appeal to the court of Appeal. These are my Grounds of Judgment.

Background Facts

[5] The background facts are basically undisputed.

[6] Tetuan Syed Ibrahim & Co is a legal firm and had represented one Liew Chia Soon ("Liew") and Fintree in a litigation proceeding in Kuala Lumpur High court Suit No WA-22NCC-623-12/2020 ("Suit 623"). Liew and Fintree were the 1st and 2nd Defendant respectively.

[7] The representation was for three days from 12 January 2021 to 14 January 2021.

(See Enclosure 2 Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support para 9 and Defendant's Reply Affidavit dated 22 August 2022 at para 10).

[8] Following Tetuan Syed Ibrahim & Co's discharge as solicitors on 14 January 2021, an Invoice dated 15 January 2021 for professional fees of RM50,000 was raised by them for Liew to pay. They also raised an Invoice No 538/(01)/2021 dated 15 January 2021 for professional fees of RM250,000 for Fintree to pay. ("Invoice").

(See Enclosure 2 Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support, Exhibits A-2 and A-3, pages 40 and 43 and Defendant's Reply Affidavit dated 22 August 2022 at paras 9 and 11).

[9] Both Invoices are for work done by Tetuan Syed Ibrahim & Co for Liew and Fintree in Suit 623.

[10] Liew applied for his Invoice to be taxed on the ground it was way excessive. The High court reduced the professional fees claimed from RM50,000 to RM15,000. (See encl 2 Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support, Exhibits A-3 and A-4, pages 40 - 48).

[11] Fintree did not pay the Invoice of RM269,199.

[12] It is Fintree's pleaded case that after the Invoice was received on or around 15 January 2021 one Datuk Mohd Afrizan was appointed the Interim Judicial Manager of Fintree only 5 days later on 20 January 2021. The appointment of Datuk Mohd Afrizan was challenged and set aside by the court of Appeal on 21 February 2022. Despite this order, Datuk Mohd Afrizan did not return Fintree's assets, goods, documents and records. These were only returned after Liew and Fintree obtained an injunction order on 12 April 2022.

[See Enclosure 18 Plaintiff's Supplementary Affidavit paras 8.1 to 8.11]

[13] The Plaintiff also submitted that during the time Datuk Mohd Afrizan was Fintree's Interim Judicial Manager, he effectively assumed sole and full control of Fintree pursuant to s 414(2) of the Companies Act 2016. [See Plaintiff's Written Submissions at para 43]

court Proceedings

[14] On 27 June 2022, Tetuan Syed Ibrahim & Co filed a Writ and Statement of Claim against Fintree in Kuala Lumpur Sessions court Suit No WA-A52NCVC-458-06/2022 ("Suit 458") for payment of the Invoice. (See encl 2 Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support, Exhibit A-1, pages 10 - 37).

[15] The Writ and Statement of Claim for Suit 458 was subsequently served on Fintree on 29 June 2022.

[16] An Originating Summons was filed by Fintree on 28 July 2022 pursuant to s 121(1)(b) LPA to tax on a solicitor and client basis the Invoice.

[17] Fintree asserts the Invoice