Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction to compel taxation of legal fees after statutory time limits if special circumstances indicate excessive or disproportionate charges.

[1] In the High Court, Tan Tek Sin and Yap Sin @ Yap Yiaw ("the plaintiffs") took out an Originating Summons dated 7 February 2014 ("the OS") against Tetuan Nora Hayati & Associates ("the defendant") seeking, among others, the Court's discretion to grant an order to compel the defendant to prepare a detailed bill of costs pursuant to a bill issued by the defendant dated 9 September 2009, and for taxation and determination of the same.

[2] The defendant was the plaintiffs' lawyer The bill in question was in the sum of RM631,141.20 of which RM600,000.00 for legal fees alone. The plaintiffs disputed the bill on account that it was unduly exorbitant and in every respect disproportionate to the legal work expended.

[3]The High Court dismissed the OS. Hence, the plaintiffs' appeal to this Court. It has to be noted that the High Court did not provide grounds of decision in dismissing the plaintiffs' OS.

[4] We heard the plaintiffs' appeal, and at the conclusion of the hearing we unanimously allowed it. We now give our reasons for so deciding.

[5]For convenience and ease of reference, we will refer to the parties in this judgment in the manner they were referred to in the High Court.

[6] The plaintiffs are two of the beneficiaries of the Estate of Law Kuar ("the Estate"). The defendant is a firm of advocates and solicitors.

[7] Sometime in July 2003, the plaintiffs engaged the defendant to obtain a Court order for the Letters of Administration in respect of the Estate to be granted to Amanah Raya Berhad ("ARB"), and for ARB to be appointed as the administrator de bonis non in place of the two trustees of the Estate, who had passed away ("the Legal Work").

[8] The Legal Work performed by the defendant included, among others, the preparation and filing of an Originating Summons No: S7-24-1695-2003 dated 10 September 2003 ("the LA Application") at the Kuala Lumpur High Court. On 26 January 2006, pursuant to the hearing of the LA Application, an order, among others, was granted appointing ARB as the administrator de bonis non of the Estate.

[9] Upon completion of the Legal Work, the defendant raised the bill and presented it to ARB for ARB's payment. When ARB refused to pay towards the bill, the defendant filed a claim vide S-22NCVC-57-2011 ("S22 Suit") against ARB for the recovery of the sum stated in the bill. The S22 Suit was resisted by ARB. The defendant's claim against ARB was in the end dismissed by the High Court on 12 March 2012. The High Court held that the defendant had no locus standi to sustain the claim against ARB and that the issue pertaining to the legal fees ought to be strictly settled between the plaintiffs and the defendant herein. That decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

[10] Based on the findings of the High Court in S22 Suit, on 30 October 2012, the defendant sent by registered post to the plaintiffs a letter enclosing Bill No 12/2006.

[11] The plaintiffs took the position that they did not receive the letter and the bill in question.

[12] As events unfolded, the defendant subsequently initiated a legal action against the plaintiffs via Sessions Court Suit No B52NCVC-100 November 2013 ("The Sessions Court Suit") to recover the legal fees as reflected in the bill.

[13]According to the plaintiffs, as soon as they were made aware of the Sessions Court Suit, they, as we have indicated earlier, filed the present OS for the following orders:

1. That the time limited by ss 126 and 128 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ("the LPA ") for the filing of this OS be extended in favour of the plaintiffs pur