The court affirmed the statute's timelines for solicitor's bill taxation under the Legal Profession Act while recognizing exceptions for excessive fees that could justify late challenges.

[1] The appellant's/solicitor's appeal is against the decision of the learned High Court judge who had allowed the respondent's/client's application to get the bill taxed relating to contentious business notwithstanding the limitation of one year to do so had set in pursuant to the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA 1976). The respondent's prayers before the High Court read as follows:

"(i) to deliver the plaintiff the detailed solicitors' bills of costs within 14 days after the order is made;

(ii) the said detailed solicitors' bills of costs then fixed for taxation at this Honorable Court; and

(iii) to deliver all cause papers, documents, correspondences, files and all other matters relating to the works done by the defendant to the plaintiff within 14 days after the order is made."

[2] The central allegation of the respondent before the High Court was that the solicitor's bill was not an itemised bill as per the requirement of O 59 of the Rules of the High 1980 (RHC). [Now Rules of 2012 (ROC 2012)]. In addition, it was also contended that the sum claimed by the solicitor for work done was not reasonable. The learned judge's reasons as summarised by the respondent read as follows:

"(a) the appellant had only delivered gross sum bills to the respondent. Although the Invoices set out all the works done, they did not itemise the costs of each items to show the legal fees were arrived.

(b) the respondent did not agree with the legal fees charged under the Invoices. The fees charged were not reasonable.

(c) the appellant did not have a signed written agreement with the respondent on the Legal Works."

[3] We wish to make it clear that: (i) LPA 1976 allows a solicitor to present to a client a bill for contentious matter; (ii) if the client is not happy with the bill, he has two options: (a) he can request the bill to be taxed and that has to be done within a year subject to conditions; (b) if the bill was not taxed and if he finds the sum as exorbitant, unreasonable or excessive, etc, the client can challenge the bill when the solicitor bring an action for recovery. The 1976 does not prohibit the Court from revisiting an exorbitant or unreasonable bill at the time of recovery proceedings. Only in exceptional circumstance that such a challenge may be successful; (iii) if the bill was not taxed within a year, it may be possible to seek extension of time to tax the bill pursuant to Additional Powers in the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA 1964). This possibility was discussed at length in relation to a different Act by Justice Nantha Balan in the recent case of Perbadanan Pengurusan Anjung Hijau v. Pesuruhjaya Bangunan , [2017] 4 AMR 254 . As the parties had not raised the issue of extension and additional powers of CJA 1964, we will not deliberate on the matter though there may not be any prohibition for making such application if prima facie they can demonstrate the bill was not consented or exorbitant in a case where there was no prior agreement to the said sum and there was legitimate expectation from the client that the solicitor will only present a bill for a reasonable sum as per the market practice.

[4] The Court of Appeal's decision of Tan Tek Sin & Anor v. Tetuan Nora Hayati & Associates, [2015] 2 MLJ 1 presided by Raus Sharif PCA (as His Lordship then was), Azahar Mohamed JCA (as His Lordship then was) and Lim Yee Lan JCA supports the proposition that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to intervene when a solicitor's bill is grossly excessive and may grant extension of time to get the solicitor's bill taxed. The Court of Appeal inter alia held:

"(3) The plaintiffs had engaged