Abdul Malek Ahmad FCJ:

This is an application to the judge in chambers by the 52 respondents, who were the plaintiffs in the High Court and the respondents in the Court of Appeal, to review the decision of the learned deputy registrar in awarding RM40,000 for the getting up fee for the appeal in this court under O. 59 r. 36 of the Rules of the High Court 1980(hereinafter "the Rules"). They are also applying for interest to be awarded on that amount.

Learned counsel for the respondents S Kanawagi conceded at the outset that the amount of RM2.6 million which they had asked for initially was far too excessive but contended that the RM40,000 awarded was manifestly low.

The learned deputy registrar had dismissed the application to review his own decision under O. 59 r. 34 of the Rulesbased on the following grounds:

(a) he found that the amount was fair and reasonable in the circumstances;

(b) even though the case involved a novel point as regards the aboriginal peoples' rights over land, the matter was not complex;

(c) learned counsel for the respondents took only ten minutes to submit at the appeal;

(d) the Federal Court dismissed the appeal immediately without giving any written judgment;

(e) the uphill task was on the appellants;

(f) the respondents who were the plaintiffs in the High Court are entitled to higher getting up in the court of first instance;

(g) even though the total compensation awarded to the respondents came to over RM26 million, each of the 52 respondents was only entitled to about RM500,000;

(h) the various case laws cited; and

(i) the principles as set out in sub-para. (2) of para. 1 of Part X of Appendix 1 of O. 59 of the Ruleswhich state:

(2) In exercising his discretion under this paragraph or under rule 31(2) in relation to any item, the Registrar shall have regard to all relevant circumstances, and in particular to:

(a) the complexity of the item or the cause or matter in which it arises and the difficulty or novelty of the questions involved;

(b) the skill, specialised knowledge and responsibility required of, and the time and labour expended by, the solicitor or counsel;

(c) the number and importance or the documents (however brief) prepared or perused;

(d) the place and circumstances in which the business involved is transacted;

(e) the importance of the cause or matter to the client:

(f) where money or property is involved, its amount or value;

(g) any other fees and allowances payable to the solicitor or counsel in respect of other items in the same cause or matter, but only where work done in relation to those items has reduced the work which would otherwise have been necessary in relation to the item in question.

Learned counsel disagreed that the matter at hand was not complex. He argued that there were multiple new issues on the deprivation of livelihood which affected constitutional law. These could only be found in employment contracts as there was no local case law affecting the orang asli or aborigines.

Learned counsel added that the rights of the orang asli had been set out in the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 but their common law rights was an entirely new area which, coupled with their constitutional rights, required extensive research of the rights of the aborigines in other Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand where the law is quite developed. For the Federal Court appeal alone, he said, seven bundles of authorities were prepared.

He submitted that getting up was not based on time taken in court nor is the fact that there were no written grounds of judgment a point to be considered. Nor is the division of the amount awarded for the claim, he reiterated, a relevant factor.

Reference was made to a number of authorities namely:

(a) Welltrade Middle East Ltd & Anor v. P.J Wakelin & Ors[1984] 1 MLJ 64, where the learned deputy registrar held that the interim injunction was not one of the ordinary run of the mill injunctions as any person perusing the voluminous affida