Court must provide clear methodology in assessing solicitor-client costs; arbitrary figures in cost determinations can lead to excessive awards.

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the bank's application to review the getting-up fees of RM100,000.00 made by the learned senior assistant registrar for bill of costs on solicitor-client costs pursuant to an order of Court made under s 126(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 , and reliance was made on the Rules of the High Court 1980 . And for the purpose of this judgment I will refer to the Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012) to explain the general principles relating to assessment of costs and in particular, getting-up fees.

[2] In the instant case, the defendant (now known as Hong Leong Bank Berhad) (Bank) was represented by Messrs Lee & Lim advocates and solicitors to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff in the High Court. The plaintiff succeeded and subsequently Messrs Lee & Lim was discharged as solicitors for the defendant. The defendant appealed on the decision through the present solicitors for the defendant, Messrs Simon Hue & Associates. The appeal was allowed and the Court of Appeal ordered costs of only RM5,000.00 for both the Court of Appeal and the High Court.

[3] Messrs Lee & Lim sent a bill to the Bank to claim solicitors fees for the sum of RM42,350.00. The said bill reads as follows:

[4] The Bank was not happy with the quantum claimed and in consequence, filed a petition under the Legal Profession Act 1976 for Messrs Lee & Lim to tax their bill. Based on the order of Court, Messrs Lee & Lim filed the bill of costs and the senior assistant registrar allowed RM35,000.00 for getting-up fees. Messrs Lee & Lim was not satisfied and filed a review and the senior assistant registrar revised her decision and allowed getting-up fees in the sum of RM100,000.00. This application is before me by the Bank complaining that the revised sum for getting-up ordered is excessive.

[5] After having read the preliminary submission of the parties, I was not satisfied as the parties have not dealt with the methodology to ascertain solicitor-client costs. What is obvious from the taxing registrar's certificate dated 8 June 2012 is that the learned senior assistant registrar has plucked a figure for getting-up fees without setting out the methodology in deriving the said sum.

[6] The brief facts of the case are well articulated by the applicant. Much judicial time will be saved if they are reproduced. The said submission in enclosure 49, inter alia, reads as follows:

"1.1 Nature of the claim for the above case

1.1.1 In this case the Plaintiff's original claim against HLBB (as the Defendant and formerly Credit Corporation (M) Berhad) is that the Defendant has breached the terms of a Loan Agreement to make a payment of RM73,250.00 to the Developer without the consent of the Plaintiff. Hence the Plaintiff claimed for a declaration that: -

i) the Assignment between the Plaintiff and the Bank be terminated;

ii) there is no money owed by the Plaintiff to the Bank;

iii) the Bank shall take all measures to vest the beneficial and legal rights of a property to the Plaintiff.

1.1.2 Pursuant to a sale & purchase agreement dated 29 May 1984 ("S &P"), the Plaintiff purchased the property from the Developer for a sum of RM367,500.00. The Plaintiff then obtained financing from the Defendant for a sum of RM257,000.00.

However, on 20 November 1986, when the Developer sought for the progress payment of RM73,250.00 from the Defendant, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant (by telex) to stop the payment because he had a dispute with the Developer.

1.1.3 Despite the above, the Defendant released the progress payment of RM73,250.00 payment pursuant to. Clause 1.2 of the Loan Agreement which states as follows: -

"Notwithstanding that there is a dispute between the Borrower(s) and the Vendor for the purpose of this clause the Borrower(s) hereby give (s) her/her/their express consent to the Lender to release the Housing Loan to the Vendor in the manner and at the times specified in the Sale Agreement."

1.1.4 At the trial both parties had (1) one witness each as mentioned at