A signed warrant to act constitutes a binding agreement for legal fees, and failure to provide notice for challenging bills of costs invalidates any subsequent application for taxation.

[1] There are two applications before this Court. In encl 1 (Originating Summons dated 22 January 2021), the plaintiff seeks to recover the agreed fees for legal services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendants.

[2] Enclosure 39 is filed by the defendants for an order that the plaintiff furnish its bill of costs for purposes of taxation of costs by the registrar pursuant to the Rules of Court.

[3] In relation to encl 1, the reliefs sought by the plaintiff are:

(i) that leave of the Court be granted for the plaintiff to commence this action in respect of the plaintiff's bill of cost (Fee Proforma) dated 23 December 2020 for the sum of RM2,120,000.00 pursuant to s 124 and/or s 125 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ;

(ii) that the first and/or 2nd defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of RM5,307,300.00 being the outstanding legal fees for professional services rendered to the first and/or 2nd defendant;

(iii) that the first and/or 2nd defendant pay to the plaintiff interest at the rate of 5% per annum to be calculated on the sum of RM5,307,300.00 from 23 December 2020 until the date of its full and final settlement;

(iv) a declaration that the 1st defendant is the alter ego of the 2nd defendant and had the 2nd defendant's authority to engage the plaintiff to act on behalf of the 2nd defendant; and

(v) that costs of this action to be borne by the first and/or 2nd defendant on an indemnity basis.

Factual Background

[4] The facts of this case as gleaned from the documents filed by the parties are as follows. On 23 January 2018, a freezing order was issued by the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission ("MACC") in relation to monies in the account of the 2nd defendant ("the Freezing Order") held in its bank account no: 8008599783 retained with CIMB Bank Berhad ("the said Account").

[5] On 3 April 2019, the 1st defendant was charged under s 420 of the Penal Code for allegedly cheating Consortium Zenith Construction Sdn Bhd's executive director Zarul Ahmad Mohd Zulkifli of RM19 milion between July and August 2017. The 1st defendant pleaded not guilty to the three (3) charges of cheating.

[6] On 8 April 2019, the 1st defendant was charged with sixty-eight (68) charges of money laundering amounting to RM11.4 million under s 420 of the Penal Code and s 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds from Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("AMLATFPUAA"). The 1st defendant claimed trial to the 68 charges.

[7] The 1st defendant had appointed the plaintiff to act as his representative and/or defend him in the matters above, particulars of which are as follows:

(i) Arrest No 62R-33-04/2019 - Public Prosecutor v. Gnanaraja A/L M. Gnanasundram ("the AMLATFPUAA Charges/Arrest Case 33"); and

(ii) Arrest No 62R-29-04/2019 - Public Prosecutor v. Gnanaraja A/L M. Gnanasundram ("the Cheating Charges/Arrest Case 29").

[8] The plaintiff has issued the first provisional proforma dated 3 February 2020 to the 1st defendant as professional charges and/or solicitor fees amounting to RM3,187,300.00. The 1st defendant instructed the plaintiff to file two (2) separate applications to the Sessions Court to release monies from the frozen bank account in Arrest Case 29.

[9] On 4 August 2020 pursuant to the plaintiff's instruction to the 1st defendant, a representation was submitted to the Attorney General's Chambers of Malaysia.

[10] On 23 December 2020, the representation submitted by the plaintiff on behalf of the 1st defendant was accepted and the 1st defen