JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This is the judgment of the court.

[2] The only issue in this appeal is whether a judge upon review of taxation is entitled to interfere with the quantum awarded by a taxing registrar in respect of getting up on a solicitor-client bill. The facts out of which this issue arises fall within a narrow compass. The appellant before us was the 2nd defendant in a suit brought by Negara Properties Sdn Bhd claiming, inter alia , a sum of RM6 million as damages for negligent work carried out by the appellant. The 2nd defendant was engaged by Negara Properties as a consultant infrastructural engineer. Its duty was to provide services for the construction of earthwork, road, drainage and sewerage system for the development of the project called Taman Melawati. It is arising from that engagement that the charge of negligence arose. The appellant engaged the services of Mr. R.R. Chelliah a doyen of the Bar and counsel whose reputation preceded him. He prepared a defence for the appellant. If you look at it, you will see in what detail it met the charges made against the appellant. It is a specialist defence in the sense that it deals with matters relating to drainage system and the like at length, condescending into specifics. It is beyond peradventure that a great deal of work must have gone into its preparation. It is common ground between the parties before us that at some stage Mr. Chelliah's firm was discharged and new solicitors appointed. A dispute arose between the parties as to the fee payable for the work done. Accordingly a petition of course under the Legal Profession Act 1976 was presented and an order obtained for taxation of the solicitors bill. A bill was duly presented and was taxed. For work done under the item of getting up the solicitors made a claim of RM140,000. The taxing registrar awarded a mere RM10,000. Dissatisfied with that award, the solicitors applied for review by the judge. He enhanced the taxing registrar's award to RM140,000.

[3] Before us, the appellant has argued that the learned judge was in error in making the award which he did. We were referred to the function of a review judge as stated by Aitken J in M.C. Corbett v. Ipoh Dredging , [1936] MLJ 222. The following passage in the judgment in that case was read to us:

Only so much should be allowed as would be regarded by a competent local practitioner as an adequate reward for his services as an advocate in the particular case under consideration. Opinions on such a point may differ, but it the opinion of the Registrar (or Assistant Registrar) that the law provides shall count unless, as I have said before, he can be shown to have made some obvious error, or to have exercised his in that regard capriciously or mischievously, or simply to have followed someone else's advice or instructions and not to have exercised any discretion at all.

[4] It was submitted that the registrar in the present instance had committed none of the errors adverted to by Aitken J entitling the learned judge to intervene by way of review. Reference was also made to the judgment of Abdul Malek Ahmad FCJ in Gooi Hock Seng v. Chuah Guat Khim; [2001] 1 CLJ 583; [2000] 3 AMR 3683 where at p. 587 there appears the following passage:-

In Coon v. Diamond Tread Co. [1938] Ltd [1950] 2 All ER 385, on an inquiry as to damages, an official referee awarded the plaintiff a sum of & pound;10,541, together with costs which he directed should be taxed. A bill of costs brought in by the plaintiff was reduced by the taxing master in respect of sums included in the bill in respect of the items 'instructions for brief,' fees and refreshers to leading and junior counsel, and fees of accountants whose services the plaintiff had used at the inquiry. The plaintiff objected to the reductions on the grounds that the fees allowed were inadequate, and asked for the decision of the taxing master to be reviewed.

It was held that as the complaint went to quantum only, it had not bee