JUDGMENT

Moses Susayan J:

Introduction

[1] This is the defendants' application to strike out the plaintiffs' Bill of Costs totalling RM1,767,115.00, filed pursuant to the High Court 's judgment dated 28 November 2012. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs' claim is barred by res judicata, as the Federal Court has already disallowed the legal fees when claimed as special damages. They further contend that the Bill lacks proof of actual payment or liability. The plaintiffs dispute both grounds, maintaining their entitlement under the 2012 judgment.

Background Facts

[2] The plaintiffs initiated civil proceedings in 2006 involving multiple defendants, culminating in a High Court judgment dated 28 November 2012. That judgment held in favour of the plaintiffs and included a direction that the costs of the proceedings be taxed by the Registrar if not agreed between the parties.

[3] Subsequently, in a separate damages assessment decision dated 10 January 2022, the High Court awarded, among other things, RM2,604,000.00 to the plaintiffs as legal fees under the heading of special damages. The defendants appealed, and both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court reduced the damages, with the Federal Court ultimately setting aside the RM2.6 million legal fees as special damages.

[4] In 2024, the plaintiffs served a Bill of Costs totalling RM1,767,115.00, purporting to rely on the original 2012 Judgment's direction for taxation. The defendants objected, arguing that the plaintiffs are barred by res judicata, having already pursued legal fees unsuccessfully as special damages. They further contend that the bill lacks proof of actual legal costs incurred or paid. The defendants have applied to strike out the Bill of Costs. The Court is basically to determine on two issues to decide whether the bill of costs is legally sustainable:

a) Whether the plaintiffs' Bill of Costs is precluded by the Doctrine of Res Judicata; and

b) Whether the plaintiffs have proven actual payment or legal liability for the claimed costs.

Issue 1: Whether The Plaintiffs' Bill Of Costs Is Precluded By The Doctrine of Res Judicata

[5] It is undisputed that the plaintiffs previously claimed RM2.6 million in legal fees as part of special damages and that this sum was expressly rejected by the Federal Court . The apex Court held:

"Gantirugi khas sebanyak RM2,604,000.00 untuk yuran guaman yang diawardkan kepada Responden-Responden adalah diketepikan."

[6] This unequivocal finding constitutes a final and binding determination between the same parties on the same subject matter. It is a settled principle of law that a litigant cannot reassert a claim that has already been adjudicated upon. The plaintiffs had a full opportunity to advance their claim for legal fees and chose to do so under the head of special damages. Having had that claim expressly rejected by the Federal Court , the plaintiffs are now estopped from reintroducing it as a taxable cost claim, in other words, barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

[7] The doctrine of res judicata was aptly explained by the Supreme Court in Asia Commercial Finance (M) Berhad v. Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd; [1995] 3 MLJ 189; [1995] 3 CLJ 783; [1995] 3 AMR 2559, where His Lordship Peh Swee Chin SCJ observed as follows:

"What is res judicata? It simply means a matter adjudged, and its significance lies in its effect of creating an estoppel per rem judicatum. When a matter between two parties has been adjudicated by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the parties and their privies are not permitted to litigate once more the res judicata, because the judgment becomes the truth between such parties, or in other words, the parties should accept it as the truth; res judicata pro veritate accipitur. The public policy of the law is that, it is in the public interest that there should be finality in litigation - interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium. It is only just that no one ought to be vexed twice for the same cause of action