The court ruled that timely objection to a solicitor's bill is mandatory under the Legal Profession Act, and failure to do so precludes a client from disputing the charge.

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the plaintiffs' application to restrain the defendant (solicitor) from presenting a winding up petition relating to non-payment of solicitors bill.

Brief Facts

[2] The defendant has issued a total of 20 separate s. 218 notices to the plaintiffs relating to none payment of their itemized solicitor's bill issued in essence pursuant to Solicitor's Remuneration Order 1980. The plaintiffs have not made any objections; or made any applications for taxation of the bill, as provided for under the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA 1976) . However, the plaintiffs in this application inter alia complained that (i) the quantum is excessive (ii) the defendant has failed to comply with ss. 126 and 128 of 1976 (iii) the plaintiffs are willing to deposit the monies claimed pending the invoices being taxed and the company is solvent. The defendant says (i) it is an undisputed fact that the defendant had acted for the plaintiffs, for both contentious and non-contentious works and bills have been issued (ii) at all material time the plaintiffs have not questioned, challenged or disputed the bills (iii) the bills are all itemized bills giving full details of the nature of professional services rendered by the defendant.

[3] And the defendant produces exhibits showing numerous correspondences to show that the plaintiffs have not challenged the bills and have on many occasions given assurance to the defendant's bills. And assert that more than one year has lapsed since the bills were received by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendant relied on the following cases: Mobikom Sdn Bhd v. Inmiss Communications Sdn Bhd , [2007] 3 MLJ 316 ; Tan Kok Tong v. Hoe Hong Trading Co Sdn Bhd ; [2007] 4 MLJ 355 ; [2007] 2 CLJ 305 ; Pembinaan Lian Keong Sdn Bhd v. Yip Fook Thai ; [2005] 5 MLJ 786 ; [2005] 6 CLJ 34 ; [2005] 3 AMR 65 ; RHB Bank Bhd v. Gunasingam Ramasingam ; [2002] 7 MLJ 492 ; [2002] 5 CLJ 544 ; [2002] 2 AMR 2232 ; Vije & Co v. The Co-operative Central Bank Ltd ; [1991] 3 MLJ 432 ; [1991] 4 CLJ (Rep) 188 ; Tetuan Putra Gill v. Hijaz Refinery (Pahang) Sdn Bhd & Anor; [2009] 7 CLJ 495 ; JB Kulim Development Sdn Bhd v. Great Purpose Sdn Bhd; [2002] 2 MLJ 298; [2002] 2 CLJ 345; [2002] 2 AMR 1668 ; United Asian Bank Bhd v. Hong Huat Realty (M) Sdn Bhd; [1988] 2 CLJ (Rep) 511 ; Chip Yew Brick Works Sdn Bhd v. Chang Heer Enterprise Sdn Bhd; [1988] 2 MLJ 447; [1988] 1 CLJ (Rep) 5 ; Savant-Asia Sdn Bhd v. Sunway PMI-PILE Construction Sdn Bhd ; [2009] 5 MLJ 754 ; [2008] 6 CLJ 681 ; Metalform Asia Pte Ltd v. Holland Leedon Pte Ltd [2007] 2 SLR 268.

Preliminaries

[4] As a general rule when bills for work done are bona fide disputed and the plaintiff is ready to deposit the sum, it is more likely the court will grant an injunction to restrain the defendant from presenting the petition (see Mann v. Goldstein [1968] 1 WLR 1091). I have dealt with this area of jurisprudence what is said to be "fortuna injunction" in TPPT Sdn Bhd v. Jurukur Berjasa and a number of other cases and I do not wish to repeat the same. When the dispute is to solicitor's bill, different jurisprudence applies as solicitors are a protected species, subject to the scrutiny by solicitors disciplinary board and/or the court in relation to bills for work done as provided for in LPA 1976 . Dispute as to solicitor's bills must be challenged according to law and the mere assertion that the bills are bona fide disputed and the plaintiffs being ready and willing to deposit the sum claimed cannot be a ground to grant a "fortuna injunction".

[5] I have read the OS, affidavits and submission of the parties in detail. Both the counsels have dealt with relevant issues in detail. It will ser