A taxing officer must provide reasons for their decisions; lack of such justifications indicates improper discretion, and courts retain broad powers to review taxation outcomes.

Y A STEPHEN CHUNG HIAN GUAN, JC

RULING

1. There are two applications for review of the Deputy Registrar's certificate of taxation by a Judge under 0.59 R.36 RHC i.e. Enclosures 67 and 69.

2. In respect of enclosure 67, on 29.10.2009, the Appellant's appealagainst the decision of the Sessions Court was allowed with costs tobe taxed unless agreed. The Appellant filed a notice of taxation dated12.1.2009 (enclosure 21). On 5.10.2009 the Deputy Registrar taxed off RM48.000.00 and allowed the getting-up at RM2,000.00 only. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the getting-up of RM2,000.00 had filed a notice for the DR to review the taxation. On 8.1.2010, the DR dismissed the application for review and hence this application dated21.1.2009 for review before the judge (enclosure 67).

3. The Respondent applied via enclosure 23 dated 17.3.2009 to stay all proceedings related to the taxation of costs until the disposal of the Respondent's appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the court given on 29.10.2009. The application was dismissed on 18.6.2009 with costs to be taxed and paid forthwith.

4. The Appellant filed a notice Of taxation dated 3.8.2009 (enclosure 55). On 4.9.2009 the DR taxed off RM78.000.00 and allowed the getting-up at RM2.000.00 only. The Appellant applied to the DR to review the taxation which was also dismissed on 8.1.2010. Therefore the Appellant filed this application also dated 21.1.2010 for a reviewbefore the judge (enclosure 69).

5. I shall deal with enclosure 67 first. The objections to taxation (enclosure 59) stated that the getting-up of RM2.000.00 was manifestly low, not made on established principles and did not reflect the taxed costs allowed in other comparable cases. The objections went on to state that the case inter alia required the skill, special knowledge, responsibility time and labour expended by the Appellant's counsel.

6. Generally, the court will not interfere with the taxation or the quantum unless the taxing officer's discretion has been exercised on wrong principle or the quantum allowed is obviously wrong: Starlite Ceramic Industry Ltd v Hiap Huat Pottery Union Insurance Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Chan You Young .

7. In the review before the DR, the DR did not give his reasons fordismissing the objections. It was important for the DR to give hisreasons when he answered the objections. "The reasons are neededinitially to enable the unsuccessful party to decide whether to carrymatters further. If he does bring the taxation before a judge forreview, the reasons are needed to enable the parties to know thepropositions they have to attack or defend, and also to enable the judge to understand why the taxing officer did what he did", per Sir Robert Megarry VC in Re Gibson's Settlement Trusts [1981] 1 All ER 233. The duty of a taxing master when answering an objection is to make a full statement of all his grounds and reasons in relation to the objection which may entail stating specifically whether or not a matter complained of was taken into account: Sachs J in Eaves v Eaves & Powell [1955] 3 All ER 849. In the absence of any reasons, the reasonable inference is that he had no reason or that his discretion had been exercised on wrong principle.

8. Notwithstanding that, the modern approach on a review before a judge is that there is no limitation on the court's power to review any decision of a taxing officer, whether on quantum, fact or otherwise: Lloyds Bank pic v Ang Cheng Ho Quarry & Ors

9. In taxing a bill of costs, the DR should be guided by the note to item 26 and 27 in Part IV of Appendix 1 of 059 to determine what should be allowed or not allowed in terms of the work