A cause of action for taxing costs arises only when all necessary facts have transpired, not from the date of the Consent Order.

[1] We had earlier allowed the appeal of Punithavathi @ Pushpambigai Ponniah (the Appellant) against the decision of the learned High Court Judge, who, on 21 June 2012, allowed the application of Ganendra Torquil @ Torkil A/L Ponnusamy Ganendra and Dennis Ganendra ("the 1st and 2nd Respondents") to strike out the Appellant's Notice of Taxation and Bill of Costs dated 29 December 2011, on the ground that limitation had set in. We now give our reasons for our decision.

Brief Facts

[2] The Appellant, together with one Loong Ceasar, were appointed as executors and trustees of the estate of one P. Ganendra, the deceased. In the year 2000, Goh Mary, as the wife of the late Ganendra, commenced this suit as the Plaintiff, for the removal of the Appellant and Loong Ceasar as the executors and trustees of the Estate. They were named as the 1st and 2nd Defendants, respectively, in the suit. The other beneficiaries of the Estate were named as the 3rd and 8th Defendants.

[3] On 25 August 2004, the parties entered into a Consent Order before Dato' Tee Ah Sing J (as he then was). The material terms of the Consent Order were, inter alia, as follows:

(i) The Appellant, i.e., the 1st Defendant as well as the 2nd Defendant, be discharged as the Executrix and Trustee of the Deceased's Estate;

(ii) The Respondents here, i.e., 3rd and 6th Defendants in the suit were thereafter appointed as the Administrators of the Deceased's Estate;

(iii) The Appellant's, i.e., 1st Defendant's costs be agreed by the parties or taxed by the Court and paid to the Appellant/1st Defendant; and

(iv) The Appellant's/1st Defendant's remuneration as Executrix and Trustee of the Deceased's Estate be taxed by the Court in accordance with s 43 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 and/or s 46 of the Trustees Act 1949 .

[4] On 3 May 2005, the Consent Order dated 25 August 2004 was set aside by Dato' Tee Ah Sing J pursuant to O 42 r 13 of the then Rules of the High 1980 (RHC) on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order and that the action be returned to the cause list.

[5] On appeal against Dato' Tee Ah Sing's decision of 3 May 2005, the Court of Appeal on 22 September 2005 set aside the Order, dated 3 May 2005, and made a consequential order allowing the parties to apply within 14 days to the High Court to set aside the Consent Order, dated 25 August 2004, which application, if made, was to be heard before another Judge.

[6] On 6 October 2005, pursuant to the Court of Appeal Order dated 22 September 2005, the Appellant/1st Defendant did make an application to the High Court to set aside the Consent Order of 25 August 2004. On 13 November 2006, Dato' Wan Adnan Bin Muhammad J (as he then was) dismissed the application.

[7] Initially, the Appellant took steps to tax her costs by serving a Bill of Costs dated 31 March 2011 addressed to the Plaintiff Goh Mary. On hearing of the Bill of Costs, the Plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the Consent Order of 25 August 2004 did not specify that Goh Mary was to solely bear the Appellant/1st Defendant's costs.

[8] On 23 August 2011, the Senior Assistant Registrar, who heard the matter, upheld Goh Mary's preliminary objection and ordered that the Appellant's/1st Defendant's costs be borne by the Deceased's Estate.

[9] The Appellant/1st Defendant appealed against the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar to the Judge in Chambers. On 17 November 2011, Hue Siew Kheng J dismissed the appeal of the Appellant/1st Defendant and affirmed the decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar that the costs of the Appell