Timelines under the Legal Profession Act for challenging solicitor's bills are strictly enforced, and failure to comply renders the amounts final and payable.

Introduction

[1]"Justice is blind ". This is a phrase based on the metaphor of the Roman goddess of justice, Justicia, who is often depicted blindfolded and holding scales in one hand and a sword in the other hand. It symbolises that a court of law will dispense justice that is not dependent on creed, race or identity of the litigants, but only on the evidence presented.

[2] For that reason, the court does not view as relevant the fact that the Appellant's ultimate client is the Linggiu Valley Orang Asli (Jakuns) Trust or that the Respondent is a firm of solicitors. All men are equal under the hot Malaysian sun.

[3] The appeal before me concerns a suit filed on 19 November 2020 at the Sessions court by a law firm Tetuan Rosley Zechariah for nonpayment of 10 bills by a client RHB Trustees Berhad, a professional trust firm. ["Bills"]. The Bills were for work rendered by the law firm and sent to the client between 3 January 2020 and 17 February 2020. The Bills are set out in the Statement of Claim at para 6.

[4] The details of the work done by the law firm are set out in a letter from Tetuan Rosley Zechariah to RHB Trustees Berhad dated 13 February 2022. [See encl 7 Appeal Record volume 5 part C2 p 18-46]. The Bills were also enclosed.

[5] This letter was sent after RHB Trustees Berhad had terminated their services and replaced them with another law firm.

[6] Tetuan Rosley Zechariah obtained judgment on 29 September 2022 after a full trial at the Sessions court. The Sessions court had allowed judgment on the ground the 6-month period to dispute ie tax the Bills had expired under s 126 of the Legal Profession Act [" LPA "]. [See encl 9 Ground of Judgment paras 8-22].

[7] The Sessions court had also relied on a decision by the Kuala Lumpur High court dated 22 December 2021 to dismiss an Originating Summons WA-17D-30-12/2020 ["OS 30"] filed by RHB Trustees Berhad to tax the Bills on the ground the 6-month period to tax the bills had expired under s 126 of the LPA and there were no special circumstances put up by RHB Trustees Berhad to extend time under s 128(1) . [See encl 9 Ground of Judgment paras 25-27].

[8] The grounds of decision of the High court is at appendix 1 of encl 11 the respondent's Submission in particular paras 17-25.

[9] RHB Trustees Berhad appealed to me. I dismissed the appeal on 1906-2023. The crux of the appeal before me was on quantum as set out by counsel for RHB Trustees Berhad in encl 17 appellant's Written Submissions in reply at para 4 which reads:

It is the Appellant's position that at all material times the bills/invoices issued by the Respondent shall be paid by the Appellant upon the same being taxed. The issue taken by the Appellant is the quantum of the Appellant's bill/invoices and this is clear from the Appellant's Statement of Defence and evidence during the trial.

[Emphasis Added]

[10] RHB Trustees Berhad has filed an appeal to the court of Appeal. These are my Grounds of Judgment.

[11] RHB Trustees Berhad will be cited as the appellant and Tetuan Rosley Zechariah as the respondent.

court Proceedings

The Case For The Appellant

[12] The relevant submissions of the Appellant's case reproduced verbatim below is as follo