Court reviews and increases getting-up fees based on case complexity, time expended, and importance, correcting the learned SAR's underestimation of costs.

[1] Enclosure (103) is the 2nd defendant's application made vide a notice of application filed on 15 August 2012, pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court under O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC 2012"), to the Judge-in- Chambers, to review the Registrar's Certificate in respect of item 69 of the 2nd defendant's Bill of Cost dated 2 August 2012, encl (83A), for getting-up (for which the 2nd defendant had sought a sum of RM240,000.00).

[2] In its application, the 2nd defendant is seeking for an increase in the amount of RM60,000.00 which was awarded by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR"), ie on 9 May 2012 which was maintained by the learned SAR on 6 August 2012, upon a review made pursuant to the application of the 2nd defendant to the learned SAR, encl (94).

[3] Before me, the 2nd defendant's learned counsel has submitted that the amount awarded for the getting-up fee ought to be increased from RM66,000.00 to RM150,000.00 based on the grounds as set out in his Written Submissions and the authorities as contained in the Bundle of Authorities.

Enclosure (104)

[4] Enclosure (104) is the 1st defendant's notice of appeal dated 15 August 2012 to the Judge-in-Chambers to review the amount of the getting-up fee in the 1st defendant's Bill of Cost, encl (84A), which was awarded by the learned

SAR on 9 May 2012. The 1st defendant's learned counsel had sought a sum of RM300,000.00.

[5] The learned SAR had awarded a sum of RM66,188.60 for the getting-up fee together with a sum of RM5,206.00 as an allocator.

[6] Before me, the 1st defendant's counsel has submitted that the amount awarded for the getting-up fee ought to be increased from RM66,188.60 to RM300,000.00 based on the grounds as set out in her Written Submissions and the authorities as contained in her Bundle of Authorities.

Plaintiff's Submissions In Respect Of Enclosures (103) And (104)

[7] The plaintiff is resisting the 2nd defendant's application for a review of the Registrar's award and the 1st defendant's notice of appeal against the Registrar's award on the ground that the amount of getting-up costs claimed by the 1st and 2nd defendants in their respective Bills Of Cost is exorbitant, unduly inflated (see Pang Kok v. Leong Fock Hap & Anor, 1995 MarsdenLR 908 ; JP Finance (M) Berhad v. Tanswan Brothers Enterprise Sdn Bhd & Ors; 1994 MarsdenLR 1499 ; and L&M Airconditioning & Refrigerator (Pte) Ltd v. SA Shee & Co (Pte) Ltd [1993] 3 SLR 482) and unreasonably high and that the court in determining the total getting-up costs ought to take into account the established principle of law that the amount of cost claimed is reasonable in all the circumstances (see Union Insurance Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Chan You Young , 2003 MarsdenLR 1871 ).

[8] In its skeletal submissions dated 5 November 2012 which were filed in a single bundle together with the authorities referred to, the plaintiff submitted as follows:

(a) that the plaintiff's claim was mainly a contractual claim;

(b) that the full trial involved m