Back
2010 MarsdenLR 4199
HIGH COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
TETUAN LEE & LIM – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: R4-17-24-2009]
A Petition for taxation of a bill of costs is time-barred if not filed within six months from receipt date, and no extension is provided under the relevant Act.
Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Section 126(1) - Taxation of bill of costs - Petition filed for taxation was found to be out of time due to improper receipt date, as determined by comparison of exhibits - No provision for extension of time under the Act; court will not assist late parties - Dismissal of petition. (Paras 5-6)
(B) Time Limitation - Time is of the essence in legal proceedings, and adherence to time limits is strictly enforced. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner filed a Petition on 10/6/2009 to tax a Bill of Costs dated 27/11/2008, receiving conflicting claims on the date of bill receipt. The court concluded the correct receipt date was 4/12/2008, making the Petition out of time.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that no extension is permitted under the statute regarding taxation and dismissed the Petition, fixing costs at RM2000.
Issues: The key issue was whether the Petition for taxation was timely filed within the six-month limit set by the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the established receipt date dictated by the accepted evidence rendered the filing of the Petition untimely, aligning with principles that courts do not assist those who are late.
Result: Petition dismissed with costs fixed at RM2000.
The only issue in this Petition is the question of the six months period. It is a simple issue.
Upon perusal of the causes papers, I made the following findings:-
(i) This Petition was filed on 10/6/2009.
(ii) The petitioner claimed that the Bill of Costs dated 27/11/08 was delivered and received on 23/12/2008 (as shown in exhibit "HLMB 1").
(iii) On the other hand, the Respondent claimed that the said Bill of Costs was received by the petitioner on 4/12/2008 (as shown in exhibit "LL. 2").
(iv) From the above findings, it seems clear that if the date on exhibit "HLMB 1" is correct, the Petition was filed within time and the order for taxation can be give as a matter of course, under the provisions of Section 126 (1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 . But if the date on exhibit "LL 2" is correct then the Petition is out of time.
(v) Upon closer security of the two similar documents (exhibits "HLBM 1" and "LL. 2") but with two different dates of receipt; I find that it is more reasonable to conclude that the date of receipt of the Bill of costs by the petitioner to be the one as can be seen in exhibit "LL. 2". To my mind, it is the acceptable date as besides the date of receipt (ie, 4/12/2008) it also exhibited the company's rubber stamp of the petitioner. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that the Respondent, on balance of probabilities, could not have in his possession a rubber stamp belonging to the petitioner.
(vi) Having determined the date of receipt of the Bill of costs by the petitioner to be 4/12/2008, it is my finding that the filing of the petition on 10/6/2009 is out of time. It is also noted that there is no express provision in the Legal Profession Act 1976 , for extension or enlargement of time in respect of a petition under Section 126 (1) of the Act . On this issue, where time is of the essence, suffice for reference to be made to the cases of Majlis Peguam & Anor v. Tan Sri Dato Mohamed Yusoff Muhamed, and Pengkalan Holdings v. Dato' Sivaparanjothi ; [1998] 1 MLJ 218.
(vii) In addition too, where time is of the essence, it has been held in the current situation of back-log of cases, that the Court will not help a party who is late. Refer to such cases as:-
[1996] 2 MLRA 91 , [1997] 1 CLJ 396 ; [1996] 1 MLJ 223 ; and
[2006] 3 MLRH 78 , [2006] 7 CLJ 541 ; [2007] 1 MLJ 163 .
Conclusion:
