Edgar Joseph Jr J:

This was an application by taxing solicitors that the review of taxation of taxing solicitors' bill of costs as between themselves and their own clients ("the clients") herein by the Senior Assistant Registrar be reviewed by this Court pursuant to Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC) O. 59 r. 36.

The primary question for decision before the Senior Assistant Registrar was whether on the taxation to allow in favour of taxing solicitors an amount more than the gross sum bill which they had earlier rendered to the clients. At first, having had the advantage of full argument, the Senior Assistant Registrar ruled in favour of taxing solicitors and allowed a sum of RM65,658.45. However, upon review, the Senior Assistant Registrar reversed her earlier ruling relying on the judgment of Chan Sek Keong J in Berta Services Sdn. Bhd. v. Makhanlall & Co. Ltd. [1989] 2 MLJ 269 and allowed a sum of RM40,454.15 inclusive of allocatur fees.

It is settled law that in cases such as the present, unless it can be demonstrated that the Taxing Registrar has erred on a question of principle, this Court would have no jurisdiction to interfere. (See Coon v. Diamond Tread Co. Ltd. [1950] 2 AER 385)

By way of background, it is material to state the facts which gave rise to the present proceedings. The clients who were the chargee bank under a charge registered under the National Land Code 1965, (the Code) had retained taxing solicitors to resist an application by the chargors thereunder, to set aside an order enforcing the charge by way of an order for sale previously made. In the event, after lengthy arguments, I had then granted the chargor the declaration sought and set aside the order for sale on the ground that the charge had been registered in breach of explicit statutory prohibition imposed on the title to the charged land pursuant to the provisions of s. 120 of the Code, the title or interest of the chargee being defeasible since registration thereof had been obtained by means of an insufficient or void instrument and also because the Registrar of Titles, in registering the charge had acted ultra vires the powers conferred upon him. But then, acting on my own motion, and in exercise of my inherent powers to see that justice was done, I had made an order requiring the chargor to execute a fresh charge in terms of the former charge but mutatis mutandis. (see UMBCv.Perumahan Luas Sdn. Bhd. [1988] 3 MLJ 352). A subsequent appeal and a cross-appeal to the Supreme Court were both dismissed.

Taxing solicitors had before the hearing of the application to set aside the order for sale informed the clients by letter that their fees would be substantial in view of the complexity of the matter but no fees had been agreed. In the event, after the final determination of the proceedings, taxing solicitors delivered to the clients two bills, one dated 13 August 1988 in respect of the proceedings in the High Court for RM40,000 and the other dated 15 December 1988 in respect of the proceedings in the Supreme Court for RM50,000 or, in other words, for an aggregate sum of RM90,000. The clients then replied by letter dated 27 March 1989 stating that they felt that the bills were on the high side and that they would like taxing solicitors to have the bills taxed in the High Court on their behalf. Whereupon, taxing solicitors replied somewhat lengthily by letter dated 5 April 1989 as follows:

Dear Sirs,

Re: Syarikat Perumahan Luas Sdn. Bhd.

Our bills Nos 19689 and 0609 dated 13 August 1988 and 15 December 1988 in respect of Penang High Court O.S. No. 3l-835-86 and Supreme Court C.A. No. 355/88 respectively

We refer to your telefax of 27 March 1989 and having noted the contents therein require your immediate confirmation of the following:

1. Your request to tax our costs in Court in respect of matters handled by us concerning the Penang High Court Originating Summons No. 31-835-86 as from November 1987 to July 1988 and the Supreme Court Civil App