The enforceability of legal fee agreements requires assessments of fairness and reasonable understanding between solicitors and clients, free from coercion.

Abdul Hamid Embong J:

By an ex parte summons in chambers (encl. 3), the plaintiff, a legal firm, sought for the following orders:

1. To declare that the agreement dated 17 February 1992 for the fees of sum of RM40,000 between the plaintiff and the first defendant is fair and reasonable and is enforceable by the plaintiff against the first defendant.

2. Further or alternatively, the plaintiff do tax its Bills of Costs on solicitorclient basis against the first and second defendants and recover such taxed costs from the funds standing to the account of the first and second defendants with the third, fourth and fifth defendants or if the same is insufficient, the first and second defendants to pay to the plaintiff the taxed costs.

3. An injunction to restrain the first and second defendants whether by themselves or their servants or agents or otherwise from making any attempts to withdraw the sums of money standing in the respective accounts with the third, fourth and fifth defendants pending the complete disposal of this action. 4. The third, fourth and fifth defendants abovenamed whether by themselves or their servants or agents or any of them or otherwise be restrained by injunction until the complete disposal of this action or further order, from parting with the following sums of money or any part thereof standing to the credit of the first and second defendants in:

a. the accounts of the first defendant with the:

(i) Third defendant to the extent of RM35,570.37

(ii) Fourth defendant to the extent of RM23,652.62

b. the account of the second defendant with the fifth defendant to the extent of RM13,040.50 as is due and owing to account of estimated legal fees.

On 10 February 1999, after hearing the application, this court granted the ex parte injunctions as prayed for in prayers three and four with the usual undertaking on damages and set down the summons for hearing inter partes.

The factual background of this case is long and vacillating. I am grateful to learned counsel for the plaintiff for having produced a convenient precis by way of chronological events leading to this application. The salient facts pertinent to this application as borne out from numerous affidavits are now recounted.

In February 1982, the plaintiff agreed to act for the first defendant (D1) in CS. 127/1982. D1 then voluntarily deposited four banks saving books with the plaintiff to show that he had the money to pay the agreed fees to the plaintiff. On 14 September 1982, D1 also retained the plaintiff to defend him on seven criminal charges under s. 411 of the Penal Code and which arose out of the same civil suit for which the plaintiff was earlier retained. In September 1982, D1 orally agreed with Encik Hira Singh (the husband partner of the plaintiff firm), to the following:

1. The plaintiff would be paid the sum of RM40,000 as fees for the criminal and civil cases.

2. In addition, any party and party costs that the court may award would be exclusively for the plaintiff and

3. The plaintiff may appropriate the costs and the agreed fees would be paid from the said funds.

From 1983 onwards, spreading over several years, three of the seven criminal charges against D1 were tried resulting in D1's acquittal, on 3 May 1991. On 17 February 1992, D1 and the plaintiff reduced into writing, their 1982 oral agreement on the fees (see exh. HS-5, to encl. 4). D1 personally inserted the figure '$40,000' in the presence of En. Hira Singh and his clerk, Darshan Singh. HS-5 is now reproduced in full, for easy reference. A cursory glance will show that the terms of the agreement are by no means uncertain, nor the reasons why it was made.

Supramaniam s/o Pitchamuthu Block C 13, Sungai Pari Tower 302000 Ipoh. 17th February 1992

M/s Asbir, Hira Singh & Co. Advocates & Solicitors No. 6 Jalan Dato Maharajalela 30000 Ipoh.

Dear Si