The limitation period for taxation applications under the Limitation Act is six years from the accrual of cause of action, rejecting any claim of extended periods based on prior filings.

JUDGMENT

Nordin Hassan JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are three appeals filed by the appellant against the decisions of the High Court in relation to three bills of costs which were taxed by the Deputy Registrar. The appeals are Civil Appeals Nos: WA-02(A)-1500-08-2019, WA-02(A)-1501-08-2019 and WA-02(A)-1502-08-2019. The said bills of costs pertain to the following matters:

(i) Divorce Petition No: S8-33-954-2006 ('Petition 954')

(ii) Judicial Separation Petition No: S8-33-837-2000 ('Petition 837'); and

(iii) Divorce Petition No: 33-1588-2005 ('Petition 1588')

The Salient Facts

[2] The material facts in the present appeals are the following:

(i) On 3 October 2000, the respondent was engaged as senior counsel for the appellant's client in the abovementioned matrimonial proceedings and the appellant were the instructing solicitors to the respondent. The appellant's client was an Australian woman named Chantella Honeybee Sargon and her husband is a Malaysian named Ananda Dharmalingam. They have two children out of the marriage.

(ii) The respondent's appointment as senior counsel for the appellant's client ceased in September 2007 after the High Court had granted custody of the children to the appellant's client.

(iii) Thereafter, the respondent sent her gross sum bill dated 8 October 2007 in the sum of RM550,165.36 to the appellant. As the respondent had not received any respond or payment from the appellant, the respondent then filed an application to tax the respondent's bills of costs for work done in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court under subsection 126(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976. The application was granted by the High Court and an Order for Taxation was issued on 22 March 2010. The Order by High Court Kuala Lumpur among others, stated:

"...ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN Pempetisyen dibenarkan mencukaikan kosnya terhadap kesemua responden-responden tersebut di atas seperti di antara peguamcara dan pelanggan di dalam pelbagai prosiding-prosiding di dalam Mahkamah Tinggi, Mahkamah Rayuan dan Mahkamah Persekutuan tersebut di atas dalam suatu jumlah yang melebihi, jika perlu, jumlah yang dinyatakan di dalam Bil Kasar bertarikh 8 haribulan Oktober 2007 DAN AKHIRNYA ADALAH DIPERINTAHKAN kos permohonan ini dicukaikan dan dibayar oleh responden-responden kepada Pempetisyen."

(iv) The appellant then filed an appeal against the Order of the High Court but on 31 May 2012 the appeal was withdrawn. Next, on 21 March 2013 the respondent filed the bills of costs at the Court of Appeal but the matter was brought before the Deputy Registrar where the appellant raised several preliminary objections which were, whether the High Court can direct the Court of Appeal to have the Bills of Costs taxed in the Court of Appeal, whether the Court of Appeal is bound by the High Court Order, whether the High Court Order is valid in law and whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to make the said Order or leave of the Court of Appeal should be obtained.

(v) In this regard, the Deputy Registrar ruled that the preliminary objections should be decided by the Court of Appeal which resulted the appellant filing Notices of Motion on 13 November 2013 seeking the Court of Appeal determination on the issue whether a High Court can order a higher Court to tax costs of an appeal proceeded at the Court of Appeal or whether leave to tax costs ought to be applied for and granted by the Court at which the appeal was proceeded with, ie the Court of Appeal.

(vi) Further, on 10 December 2013, the Notices of Motion were dismissed by the Court of Appeal and made an order that the High Court Order dated 22 March 2010 must be adhered to and the respondent's fees for the proceedings in High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court are to be taxed in the High Court. The Order of the Court of Appeal among others stated:

"(b) Perintah bertarikh 22 Mac 2010 dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Petisyen No: R4(R2)-17-9-2008 mestilah dipatuhi dan fi peguam yang perlu dibayar oleh Taxi