The right to tax a solicitor's bill of costs is lost if the request is not made within one year, as stipulated by the Legal Profession Act 1976.

Hamid Sultan JCA:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

[1]The appellant’s/solicitor’s appeal is against the decision of the learned High Court judge who had allowed the respondent’s/client’s application to get the Bill taxed relating to contentious business notwithstanding the limitation of one year to do so has set in pursuant to the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA 1976). The respondent’s prayers before the High Court read as follows:

(i)“to deliver the Plaintiff the detailed solicitors’ bills of costs within 14 days after the order is made;

(ii)the said detailed solicitors’ bills of costs then fixed for taxation at this Honorable Court; and

(iii)to deliver all cause papers, documents, correspondences, files and all other matters relating to the works done by the Defendant to the Plaintiff within 14 days after the order is made.”

[2]The central allegation of the respondent before the High Court was that the solicitor’s bill was not an itemised bill as per the requirement of Order 59 of the Rules of High Court 1980 (RHC). [Now Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012)]. In addition, it was also the contention that the sum claimed by the solicitor for work done was not reasonable. The learned judge’s reasons as summarised by the respondent read as follows:

(a)“the Appellant had only delivered gross sum bills to the Respondent. Although the Invoices set out “all the works done”, they “did not itemise the costs of each items to show the legal fees were arrived.”

(b)the Respondent did not agree with the legal fees charged under the Invoices. The fees charged were “not reasonable.”

(c)the Appellant did not have a “signed written agreement” with the Respondent on the Legal Works.”

[3]We wish to make it clear that (i) LPA 1976 allows a solicitor to present to a client a bill for contentious matter; (ii) if the client is not happy with the bill, he has two options (a) he can request the bill to be taxed and that has to be done within a year subject to conditions; (b) if the bill was not taxed and if he finds the sum as exorbitant, unreasonable or excessive, etc. the client can challenge the bill when the solicitors bring an action for recovery. The 1976 does not prohibit the court from revisiting an exorbitant or unreasonable bill at the time of recovery proceedings. Only in exceptional circumstance that such a challenge may be successful; (iii) if the bill was not taxed within a year, it may be possible to seek extension of time to tax the bill pursuant to Additional Powers in Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA 1964). This possibility was discussed at length in relation to a different Act by Justice Nantha Balan in the recent case of Perbadanan Pengurusan Anjung Hijau v Pesuruhjaya Bangunan prima facie they can demonstrate the bill was not consented or exorbitant in a case where there was no prior agreement to the said sum and there was legitimate expectation from the client that the solicitor will only present a bill for a reasonable sum as per the market practice.

[4]The Court of Appeal decision of Tan Tek Sin & Anor v Nora Hayati & Associates inter alia held:

“(3) The plaintiffs had engaged the defendant to obtain a relatively uncomplicated court order for the letters of administration. The defendant had set-out the particulars of the legal work done without any sum being shown against each item. The bill only just showed a lump sum of RM600,000 representing the costs of all the items. This was in itself a special circumstance, which was a ground for the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to allow the plaintiffs’ extension of time and to refer the bill for taxation and determin