JUDGMENT

Narkunavathy Sundareson J:

(Enclosures 1 And 31)

Introduction

[1] Enclosure 1 is the plaintiff's application for recovery of legal fees due under an agreement for costs for contentious business done by the plaintiff for the defendants. The Plaintiff seeks payment of RM776,400.00.

[2] After careful consideration of the cause papers and submission, this court allowed the application in encl 1 against only the 1st Defendant. This court also dismissed encl 31. The following are the reasons for the decision.

Enclosure 1

[3] In the plaintiff's affidavit in support (encl 2), Najib bin Zakaria averred that:

(i) he is the sole proprietor of the plaintiff;

(ii) the defendants were investigated by the authorities for offences under s 420 Penal Code and s 4(1) Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA);

(iii) in the course of these investigations, several freezing orders were made in respect of the defendants' vehicles (exh "NZ-1");

(iv) the 1st Defendant appointed the plaintiff to act for him and the 2nd Defendant, his mother vide a Warrant to Act and the Proposal for Legal Service dated 29 September 2022;

(v) the 1st Defendant signed the written agreement agreeing to pay the plaintiff RM1,600,000.00 in legal fees (exh "NZ-2");

(vi) the 1st Defendant paid RM20,000.00 as deposit;

(vii) the plaintiff attended when the 1st Defendant gave his statement to the police, wrote representation letters to the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) and filed cause papers to secure the release of the vehicles (which was later withdrawn on the 1st Defendant's instructions);

(viii) at the 1st Defendant's request, the fees were restructured wherein he gave an undertaking to pay the plaintiff RM700,000.00 if the matters were resolved with either the Government of Malaysia or the complainant (exh "NZ-4");

(ix) as a result of several meetings with the authorities and the complainant, the plaintiff secured a consent judgment between the 1st Defendant and the complainant in Suit No: BA-22 NCVC-387-09/2023 (exh "NZ-5");

(x) on 13 March 2024, the plaintiff billed the 1st Defendant for RM776,400.00 (exh "NZ-6"); and

(xi) to date, the defendants have yet to pay the bill.

[4] In his affidavit in reply (encl 20), the 1st Defendant averred that:

(i) the plaintiff was appointed to represent him and not the 2nd Defendant;

(ii) there were other communications with the plaintiff that payment of the fees was dependent on the facts and circumstances of the cases against him;

(iii) the fees were reduced to RM700,000.00 and only payable if he was able to recover 40% of his assets frozen by the authorities;

(iv) he had no knowledge of whom the plaintiff met to resolve his problem because he was in discussion with the complainant;

(v) the plaintiff never showed him the draft copy of the consent judgment to get his consent to the terms contained therein whereby he suffered losses beyond the claim by the complainant; and

(vi) he was dissatisfied with the plaintiff's work and that the claim was excessive.

[5] In their affidavit in reply (encl 21), the plaintiff exhibited a copy of the representation letter dated 8 September 2022, sent to the AG's Chambers on the 1st Defendant's behalf.

Chronology Of Proceedings

[6] Enclosure 1 was filed on 7 May 2024. Although the plaintiff filed an affidavit of service that the cause papers were served on the defendants personally on 23 May 2024, there was some issue with service and they were directed to re-serve the papers.

[7] The 1st Defendant filed his affidavit in reply on 21 October 2024. Despite directions for filing submissions, the 1st Defendant never filed any submissions for encl 1.

[8] On 20 February 2025, the 1st Defendant's solicitor was allowed to withdraw from acting for him and at the 1st Defendant's request, he was given ample time to appoint a new counsel. The 2nd Defendant was present on 20 February 2025 having just been served with the cause papers. She was unrepresented.

[9] On the next date