JUDGMENT

Abdul Wahab Patail J:

[1] By a writ of summons and the statement of claim dated 12 November 1997 the plaintiff claimed against the 1st defendant for the sum of USD2,000,000 or equivalent in Ringgit Malaysia due under an agreement on fees; or in the alternative, the sum of RM2,629,960.70 payable under the Plaintiff's bill No. 126/12/95 dated 7 December 1995, posted to the 1st defendant by AR Registered on 7 December 1995 and received by the 1st defendant on 8 December 1995. The plaintiff is a firm of advocates and solicitors. By submission on its behalf, the plaintiff abandoned the claim based on the agreement, and continued with its claim on the alternative.

[2] On 28 March 2007 this court directed the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to submit under O. 14A RHC 1980 on the following:

a) The validity and enforceability of the plaintiff's bill, and heard together with

b) The application (encl. 46) by the 1st defendant to strike out the plaintiff's claim.

[3] Briefly the facts not in dispute and relevant to the determination of the validity and enforceability of the plaintiff's bill are as follows:

a) The business done by the plaintiff for the 1st defendant is non-contentious work covered by the Sixth Schedule to the Solicitors' Remuneration Order 1991 (SRO 1991).

b) The work done by the plaintiff for the 1st defendant included but is not limited to, the Engineering Procurement Construction and Commissioning Contract (EPCC Contract) with KTI in the sum of US Dollars 156 million.

c) The 1st defendant had in a letter dated 22 June 1995 informed KTI that:

We understand that you are aware of our views on the draft Contracts and our agreement to include the fees payable to M/S Gill & Co as a part of the total Contract Price. Kindly have these matters settled by KTI before the next round of negotiations which will be handled by Mr. J S Gill of M/S Gill & Co and our Dr. Khin Bo.

d) The plaintiff's bill No. 126/12/95 dated 7 December 1995 for payment of the sum of RM2,629,960.70 together with the accompanying letter dated 7 December 1995 and signed by the plaintiff were delivered to and received by the 1st defendant on 8 December 1995.

e) By a letter dated 22 December 1995, the 1st defendant through its solicitors, informed the plaintiff that the "bill is most unrealistic and unreasonable and is totally unacceptable" to the 1st defendant, and suggested that "(the plaintiff) put up a fresh reasonable and itemized bill following which we may advice (the 1st defendant) to consider" payment.

[4] The bundle of documents and the chronology of events set out the events in which the plaintiff was involved from May 1994 to December 1995, as pleaded in para 4 of the statement of claim. It shows there were a number of meetings including a visit to Australia when the plaintiff's Mr. J. S. Gill discussed the project with BMP Petroleum. Mr. J. S. Gill had by then been in practice for between twelve (12) and thirteen (13) years, having been admitted as an advocate and solicitor on 11 June 1982. There were follow up discussions and correspondence with BMP Petroleum. These are referred to in items numbers 21 and 23 of the chronology of events. There were also meetings with various foreign parties including Daqing Petrol from China for which the plaintiff prepared a memorandum of understanding, later amended by Daqing Petrol. These were referred to in items number 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the chronology of events. The plaintiff appears to be involved in the financing aspects of the project and the plaintiff arranged a presentation by ABN Amro Bank and were involved with discussions with ABN Amro Bank regarding the financing of the project. There were other meetings with other parties and work done, in some cases involving the other parties referred to in the chronology of events.

[5] The major part of the work undertaken by the plaintiff involved dealings with KTI and the negotiations and preparation of documents that followed including the preparation of the EPCC