Petition as a matter of course This is a petition of course under s 130 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ('LPA') for an order, inter alia, that the respondent deliver to the petitioner within 14 days of the order herein a bill of costs for the work done by the respondent and that the bill be referred to the registrar to be taxed and settled with all the usual directions. Circumstances of the case

The petitioner is the Managing Director of Oriental Wealth (M) Sdn Bhd having its registered office at No 41A, Jalan Goh Hock Huat, 41400 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan and is petitioning on behalf of the said company. The petitioner had instructed the respondent Tan Kim Soon & Co a firm of solicitors to act for him and on behalf of the said company as plaintiff in the Shah Alam High Court Civil Suit No MT4–22–626–97 against three defendants viz RHB Bank Bhd, Ab Halim bin Mohyiddin and Ng Kim Tuck, for an interim injunction and for damages.

The respondent obtained an injunction against the second defendant Ab Halim bin Mohyiddin and the third defendant Ng Kim Tuck.

The fees allegedly agreed by the petitioner with the respondent was RM100,000 for the whole case until its final conclusion and judgment given by the court. The petitioner has paid a sum of RM50,000 to the respondent, up to the stage of obtaining the interim injunction and including all attendances at meetings, discussions and advice given to the petitioner in connection with the said civil suit and all ancillary matters related to that case.

As there were differences and misunderstanding between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner discharged the respondent from acting further in that suit. The respondent then sent the petitioner a further bill dated 27 August 1998 for RM42,000.

The petitioner accordingly through his present solicitors M/s Balwant Singh & Son wrote a letter to the respondent dated 7 December 1998 informing them that the petitioner disputed the further bill and that the respondent may have the bill of costs taxed.

The respondent has meanwhile refused to hand over to the petitioner or his present solicitors all the files, pleadings, documents and papers in connection with the said suit despite many requests verbally and in writing.

The respondent had also sent a letter dated 27 August 1998 to the petitioner dated 10 July 1998 demanding a sum of RM205,000 for fees and RM15,000 for disbursements including the fees for two appeals which have yet to be filed and for full trial in the High Court.

On 12 August 1998, the petitioner replied to the above letter denying the fee owing and that the fees allegedly agreed, up to the conclusion of the interim injunction, was RM50,000 and a further RM50,000 for full trial and conclusion of the said suit until Judgment was given by the court.

The petitioner wrote a letter dated 1 September 1998 to the respondent to hand over to the petitioner's new solicitors all the documents and files in connection with the said suit and undertook to pay the bill after it has been assessed or taxed by the court.

The petitioner's new solicitors M/s Balwant Singh & Son sent a letter dated 17 December 1998 to the respondent stating that the petitioner disputed the fees claimed by the respondent and that the petitioner has paid RM50,000 for obtaining the interim injunction and that a further balance of RM50,000 was to be paid after the hearing and delivery of final judgment by the court. Submission for the petitioner

It was submitted for the petitioner that when the respondent managed to obtain the interim injunction, the respondent became greedy and wanted to get as much fees as possible, since the respondent thought that the respondent had done the petitioner a great favour by getting the interim injunction on 26 June 1998 although it was the respondent's duty to do his best for the petitioner. The fee demanded by the respondent was grossly excessive in proportion to the professional services rendered by the responde