Chong Siew Fai J

This is an application by the first defendant company for review of art 152 of the third defendant's bill of costs taxed by the learned registrar of the High Court. Particulars given under art 152 of the bill are as follows:

Taking instruction to defend, considering law and facts, attending on and corresponding with client, arranging to obtain reports or advice from M/s Drew & Napier Advocates and Solicitors, Singapore on Singapore law, making search at Company Registry, perusing pleadings, affidavits, general law and conduct of proceedings.

The item in App 1 to O 59 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 relied on is item 26 which provides: 'Instructions for trial or hearing of any cause or matter whatever the mode of trial or hearing. Discretionary.'

The 'Note to items 26 and 27' in App 1 states:

These items are intended to cover the doing of any work, not otherwise provided for, necessarily or purposely done in preparing for a trial, hearing or appeal, or before a settlement of the matters in dispute, including -

(a) taking instructions to sue, defend, counterclaim, or appeal, or for any pleading, particulars of pleading, affidavit, preliminary act or claim in a reference under Order 70, rule 39;

(b) considering the facts and law;

(c) attending on and corresponding with client;

(d) interviewing and corresponding with witnesses and potential witnesses and taking proofs of their evidence;

...

(h) perusing pleadings, affidavits and other relevant documents;

...

(j) the general care and conduct of the proceedings.

The claim has sometimes been called 'getting-up fee'.

The relevant facts forming the background of the present review may be stated as follows:

The plaintiff sued four defendants including the first defendant company and the third defendant for RM2,107,968.58 being amount owing under credit facilities granted to the first defendant guaranteed by the other defendants including the third defendant who also agreed to indemnify the plaintiff.

The first defendant filed a defence denying liability.

The third defendant also filed a defence which was subsequently amended, denying liability and raising, inter alia, matters on exchange control, illegality, consent of Bank Negara Malaysia, money-lending, alleged variation of letter of offer by the plaintiff, rate of interest and so forth.

On 12 April 1988, the plaintiff took out an application under O 14 and O 18 r 19 of the Rules of High Court 1980 for judgment against the first, second and third defendants. Various affidavits and documents as exhibits were filed on behalf of the plaintiff and various defendants. Eventually, the application and the action were withdrawn with leave of court because the first defendant had settled the plaintiff's claim, but the question of costs were left open with liberty to apply.

On 16 March 1990, the third defendant through his advocates, applied by notice of motion for his costs of the action and of the application for judgment to be paid by the plaintiff. On 9 July 1990, the learned judge ordered the first defendant to pay the second and third defendants costs of the action including costs occasioned by the plaintiff's application for judgment which was subsequently withdrawn for reason aforesaid. (A Sanderson Order as it is normally called.)

The third defendant therefore took out the notice of taxation of his bill of costs in respect of which art 152 is now on review.

Originally, the sum claimed under art 152 was RM55,000. At the initial taxation, the learned registrar allowed RM10,000. Upon review at the instance of the third defendant on 11 September 1991, she increased it by RM18,000 to RM28,000. (For reasons, see encl 121 encl A).

The first defendant, now applies for review by a judge.

For the first defendant, it was contended that the item should be disallowed altogether. Having regard to the wide scope of item 26 and the note relating thereto as reproduced above, I reject the contention. Moreover, there are amp