Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2691
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
RHB TRUSTEES BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
TETUAN ROSLEY ZECHARIAH – Respondent
[Appeal Suit No: WA-12BNCVC-142-10/2022]
Timelines under the Legal Profession Act for challenging solicitor's bills are strictly enforced, and failure to comply renders the amounts final and payable.
Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act - Sections 126 and 128 - Non-payment of legal bills - Appellant failed to tax bills within the statutory six-month period, rendering them final and payable - Court ruled that the agreement to tax the bills was not adhered to by the appellant, who only disputed the quantum of the bills. (Paras 40-46)
(B) Legal standards for taxation of costs - Timelines for challenging solicitor's bills are strictly enforced to ensure prompt payment for services rendered. (Paras 39-42)
(C) Allegations of negligence - Appellant's claims of negligence were unsupported by evidence and abandoned during proceedings. (Paras 52-56)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a law firm, filed a suit for non-payment of legal bills rendered to the appellant, a professional trust firm, for services provided between January and February 2020. The appellant failed to tax the bills within the six-month limit set by law, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant was out of time to challenge the bills and upheld the lower court's judgment.
Issues: Whether the appellant owes payment for the bills, whether the claim was filed contrary to the LPA, and whether the appellant's allegations of negligence were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for taxation of solicitor's bills, ruling that failure to do so renders the amounts final and payable.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. justice is impartial to litigants. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the suit and judgments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. appellant's arguments regarding tax agreement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. respondent's case and procedural history. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. issues raised by the appellant. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. court's analysis of appellant's contentions. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. legal timelines for challenging solicitor's bills. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. implications of failing to challenge bills timely. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 9. allegations of negligence unsupported by evidence. (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 10. court's dismissal of appellant's claims. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
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 follows.
