Wee Chong Jin CJ:

From early November 1975 to August 27, 1976 the defendant's firm of Braddell Brothers was retained as and acted as solicitors for the plaintiff company and all its subsidiaries. During that short period of approximately ten months the company paid $119,500 to Braddell Brothers to account of costs, excluding disbursements.

The first two bills of costs delivered by Braddell Brothers were on August 30, 1976 and September 3, 1976 and on March 30, 1977 24 further bills of costs were delivered, one of which was for $500,000 for costs and $1,011 for disbursements. This bill of costs is headed "Re Haw Par/Slater Walker Dispute" and is not itemised but sets out in narration form the "professional services rendered in the above matter" and ends with the lump sum of $500,000. It runs to 245 pages. All the other bills of costs are also not itemised bills but are lump sum bills.

The company considered it was grossly overcharged and after several attempts which were made to arrive at a mutually agreed settlement fa iled the company on September 23, 1978 wrote to Braddell Brothers stating that unless they were "prepared to accept the sum paid of $119,500 as adequate compensation for the work done ... in full and final settlement of all amounts due for the work done they will have no option but to submit all the bills to the Registrar for taxation".

The defendant commenced proceedings in the High Court against the company on December 12, 1978 claiming, inter alia, payment of $477,636.28 being the balance of costs for work done and services rendered. The company took out the present originating summons on January 10, 1979 asking for the following relief:-

1. An Order that the defendant do within 30 days after service of this Order deliver to the plaintiff bills of costs in all matters of business specified or referred to in the second column of the Schedule hereto attached and that such bills as and when delivered be referred to the Registrar to be taxed and settled and that the defendant do give credit for all sums of money received by him from or on account of the plaintiff and refund what (if anything) he may on such taxation appear to have been overpaid.

2. In the alternative, an Order that the bills of costs delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant, particulars whereof are set out in the said Schedule hereto attached, be referred to the Registrar to be taxed and that the defendant do give credit for all sums of money received by him from or on account of the plaintiff and refund what (if anything) he may on such taxation appeal to have been overpaid.

3. An Order that the Registrar do tax the costs of the reference and certify what shall be found due to or from either party in respect of the said bills and of the costs of the reference, to be charged (if payable) according to the event of the taxation, pursuant to the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 217).

4. An Order that pending delivery of the bills of costs and taxation of costs under paragraph I above, or taxation of the said bills of costs under paragraph 2 above, the defendant do not prosecute the action in Suit No. 3731 of 1978 or commence any other action for recovery of any costs.

I made an order in terms of prayers 2 and 3 and stayed the defendant's action pending taxation. It was not in dispute that the Court, in the exercise of its general or original or inherent jurisdiction over its officers, may order taxation where its statutory jurisdiction is inapplicable. The facts before me which were not in dispute are as follows. From January 1976 to September 1976 the company paid to Braddell Brothers a retaining fee of $1,500 a month and the company provided two rooms in the company's offices and a secretary for the use of the defendant and a Legal Assistant of Braddell Brothers. The defendant during a period of nine months devoted practically the whole of his time in advising the company over the problems confronting the company arising out of its d