Back
2025 MarsdenLR 5257
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
DATO PAHLAWAN RAMLI YUSUF – Appellant
Versus
TETUAN VIN LAW & CO – Respondent
[Appeal No: WA-12BNCvC-60-05/2024]
Jurisdiction for Bill of Costs taxation lies within the Registrar’s authority, not the SCJ, and requests for detailed billing under the Legal Profession Act must be clearly communicated to withdraw gross sum bills.
Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Proviso (a) in s 121(1) - Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 29 - Rules of Court 2012 - Order 55 r 2 - Taxation of a Bill of Costs - The SCJ erred in asserting jurisdiction over the taxation of costs as it falls under the Registrar’s jurisdiction; while the appeal highlighted issues of jurisdiction and the nature of the detailed bill requested by the appellant. (Paras 2, 11, 12, 18, 19)
(B) Costs - The discretion of the SCJ to award costs is recognized as wide and appropriate; it is only interfered with in cases of clear legal error. (Paras 14, 35)
Facts of the case:
The appellant appealed against a decision by the SCJ on taxation of the respondent's Bill of Costs amounting to RM259,355.00, wherein the respondent alleged non-payment for legal services rendered. The appellant had argued the order was without jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The SCJ's decision to allow the taxation was upheld, affirming the award of RM259,355.00 plus RM10,000.00 in costs.
Issues: The main question addressed was whether the SCJ possessed the jurisdiction to tax the Bill of Costs. The second issue focused on the interpretation of the appellant's request for a detailed bill as per the LPA 1976.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the SCJ overstepped its bounds as the taxation authority lies solely with the Registrar, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to procedural jurisdiction. It was established that the appellant's request for a breakdown constituted a legitimate request for a detailed bill under the Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal regarding scj jurisdiction on costs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of legal representation and cost claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. jurisdiction and validity of the scj's order. (Para 11 , 17) |
| 4. court's discretion on taxation and costs. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. principles regarding taxation procedures. (Para 18 , 20 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. correspondence reveals context of legal disputes. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. dismissing the appeal and ordering costs. (Para 36 , 37) |
Introduction
[1] This was an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ('SCJ') on 15 May 2024 in allowing the respondent's Bill of Costs in the sum of RM259,355.00 and costs of RM10,000.00 to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.
[2] Appeals against any decision on the taxation of a Bill of Costs is a rarity in this Court. The present appeal is not the run-of-the-mill appeals against the decision on the total costs allowed by the Registrar after a Bill of Costs is taxed. Rather, this appeal is believed to have raised a novel issue on jurisdiction, namely, whether in the circumstances of the case, the SCJ has the jurisdiction to hear the taxation of the respondent's Bill of Costs.
[3] After having considered the Record of Appeal and the submissions of the parties, I had dismissed the appellant's appeal. The Order made by the SCJ was affirmed with a further Order that the allocatur certificate is to be issued for the taxation of the Bill of Costs in the sum of RM259,355.00 and costs of RM10,000.00, which was ordered to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.
[4] The Appellant is dissatisfied with my decision. Broad grounds were given on the date of decision ie 28 March 2025. These are my full grounds of judgment.
Salient Facts
[5] The Respondent is a law firm and was appointed by the appellant to represent him in the following civil suit and the related appeal and application in the apex Court:
(a) Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No:21NCvC-72-11/2013 between the appellant and Tan Sri Abdul Gani Bin Patail & 11 Ors ('Suit 72');
(b) Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No W-01(1M)(NCvC)-137-04/2014 between Tan Sri Abdul Gani Bin Patail & 11 Ors and the appellant; and
(c) Federal Court Civil Application No 08-191-04/2015 between Tan Sri Abdul Gani Bin Patail & 11 Ors and the appellant
(hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Said Proceedings"; see Dato' Pahlawan Ramli Yusuff v. Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail & Ors ; [2015] 7 MLJ 763 ; ).
[6] The fact as regards the appointment of the respondent by the appellant and that the former had rendered legal services until its discharge in 2017 is not in dispute.
[7] The Respondent alleged that the appellant did not make any payment for the legal services. A series of letters were sent by the respondent to the appellant demanding for demand but to no avail. This led to the filing of Originating Summons ('OS') No. WA-A54-103-12/2020 ('Suit 103') in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on 9 December 2020 (encl 1) where the respondent prayed for, among others, an Order that the Registrar is directed and given the power to tax Invoice No HS-010-2019 ('Said Invoice'), which was received by the respondent.
[8] On 21 May 2021, the SCJ allowed the respondent's application in encl 1 of Suit 103. The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal against the SCJ's decision. On 21 February 2022, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
[9] The Respondent had filed the Notis Penetapan Kos on 23 July 2021 to commence taxation proceedings (encl 25 in Suit 103).
[10] Subsequently, another SCJ taxed the respondent's Bill of Costs which resulted in the decision as mentioned at the start of this judgment and against which this appeal was brought to this Court. Specifically, the SCJ allowed the sum of RM250,000.00 as "kos Penyediaan (Perkara A BilKos)" and RM9,355.00 as "kos Perbelanjaan (Perkara B BilKos)". The SCJ ordered that the total sum of RM259,355.00 is to be paid immediately by
