The court established that in taxation of solicitor-client costs, reasonableness of incurred costs must be assessed based on complexity, skill, and necessity, with the burden of proof lying on the solicitor.

JUDGMENT

Henry Ho Yit Tao Reg:

A. Prelude

[1] Before me there is a Notice of Taxation by Registrar ("Taxation Notice") vis-à-vis the taxation of Bill of Costs dated 1 November 2023 issued by the Defendant in the total amount of RM1,130,396.00 ("Detailed Bill of Costs").

[2] The Detailed Bill of Costs consists of professional fees and disbursements incurred or accrued pursuant to professional services rendered by the Defendant through its partner, Mr Chua Eng Siong ("Former Solicitor") to the Plaintiff ("Client") in relation to a dispute between the Client and his previous employer.

[3] The Detailed Bill of Costs is filed pursuant to the Consent Order between the parties dated 18 October 2023 ("Consent Order") wherein it was agreed that Bil No 0011 dated 18 March 2021 in the amount of RM160,000.00 ("Previous Bill") be deemed as gross sum bill and of no effect.

[4] Having considered the relevant documents and submissions filed by both parties, I taxed the Detailed Bill of Costs as follows (the Detailed Bill of Costs accumulates up to a total number of 19 pages and therefore what follows is the reproduction of the amount taxed, in accordance with their respective headings. The breakdown thereof will be dealt with, one after another, at the latter part of this Ground):

PERBELANJAAN HANGUS/SENDIRI

[5] The following are my reasons.

Brief Facts

[6] The Former Solicitor and the Client are cousins. Their solicitor-client relationship began as early as June 2019 due to the then impending legal action expected to be taken against the Client by his former employer. The Client first received a Letter of Demand from the former employer. He referred the matter to the Former Solicitor. Weeks later the Client received a Statement of Claim, again he referred the matter to the Former Solicitor.

[7] The Client's former employer initiated legal action formally against the Client by filing a suit in the High Court of Malaya in Shah Alam on 21 September 2019. As of December 2020, the Client had made payments in different occasions, and a total of RM105,000.00 were being made. Up until that point of time, no formal bill has been issued by the Former Solicitor in relation to the works done or services rendered.

[8] The brief continued until the Client grew restless with the service of the Former Solicitor. He sought the advice of another set of new solicitors. He then discovered the conduct of the Former Solicitor in relation to his case with the assistance of his new set of solicitors. Being discontented, the Client appointed the said set of new solicitors (who are the solicitors representing him in this proceedings before us) to take over the matter from the Former Solicitor.

[9] The Former Solicitor initially refused. The Previous Bill in the amount of RM160,000.00 was issued, and the Client was asked to settle the balance of RM55,000.00 remaining unpaid. Both sides started to explore a mutual ground so that the Former Solicitor could agree to the said set of new solicitors to take over the Client's conduct. Change of solicitors took place after both the Former Solicitor and the Client agreed to have the Previous Bill taxed. It was impressed upon this Court that the said brief which was taken over by the said set of new solicitors has thereafter been settled amicably between the Client and his former employer.

[10] The parties then resorted to this Court for the Previous Bill to be taxed. As alluded to earlier, the Consent Order was recorded. The Previous Bill was deemed of no further effect, and the Detailed Bill of Costs in lieu thereof, was delivered to the Client. The Detailed Bill of Costs is now before this Court.

C. Principles On Taxation Of Costs

[11] It is apposite to determine at the outset the principles which I am bound to apply in the taxation of the Detailed Bill of Costs. Learned counsel for the Former Solicitor referred to O 59 r 16(1) of the Rules of 2012 on the matters which I am supposed to have regard to. They are:

Order 59 Costs

...

16. Basis of