Back
HIGH COURT (PENANG)
QUAY CHEW SOON J
CIVIL SUIT NO PA-22NCvC-121-07 OF 2023
6 March 2024
So Chien Hao (CH So & Assoc) for the plaintiff.
Mureli Navaratnam (with Sasshmitha Devi Magesvaran) (Mureli Navaratnam) for the defendant.
The legal document indicates that the court has decided to strike out the plaintiff's claim against the defendant based on the application of Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012, which permits striking out a claim that is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process (!) (!) . The court found that the plaintiff’s action was clearly unsustainable and that proceeding with the case would be an abuse of court process (!) .
The primary reasons for the decision include the application of the doctrines of res judicata and wrong mode of action. The court determined that the plaintiff’s current claim was barred by res judicata because a similar challenge had already been litigated and finally decided in a previous taxation proceeding, which the plaintiff did not appeal (!) (!) . The court emphasized that the issue of the validity of the invoices and the related claims had been previously raised, argued, and decided in that earlier proceeding, making re-litigation impermissible (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff’s action was initiated via an improper mode of legal action. Challenging a law firm’s invoice must be done through a statutory taxation process under the Legal Profession Act 1976, and any attempt to challenge the invoices outside this prescribed procedure is invalid and constitutes an abuse of process (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court also noted that the plaintiff had previously acknowledged the legal services provided by the defendant and that the dispute was primarily over the amount payable, which should have been addressed through the statutory taxation process, not a separate civil suit (!) (!) . The failure to follow the statutory procedure, especially after the taxation proceeding was struck out, reinforced the finding that the current claim was improperly brought (!) .
In conclusion, the court found that the claim was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court process, and that the issues raised were either already decided or should have been addressed via the appropriate statutory channels. Accordingly, the court struck out the plaintiff’s action and ordered costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant (!) (!) .
Grounds of Decision
Introduction
[1]The Defendant (“D”) filed a notice of application dated 25.10.2023 vide Enclosure 9 to strike out the Plaintiff’s (“P”) claim. Enclosure 9 is made under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012
[2]On 21.2.2024. I allowed Enclosure 9. I struck out P’s action against D. Here are the grounds of my decision.
Background facts
[3]The present suit has been filed by P to challenge the tax invoices issued by D, a law firm, pertaining to its professional charges.
Originating Summon No. OS-24-1400-2001
[4]D had acted as the solicitors for the beneficiaries (including P), in the proceedings under Originating Summon No. OS-24-1400-2001 (“said OS”) and all proceedings related to the estate of Ong Bee Neoh (“deceased”). The said OS was filed by the then trustee of the deceased estate on 27.8.2001 at the Penang High Court to determine the interpretation of the trust given by the deceased.
[5]Subsequently, D was appointed by the beneficiaries (including P), to act for the beneficiaries (including P) in the proceedings under the said OS and all proceedings related to the deceased estate. Pursuant to the said appointment, a warrant to act dated 18.12.2002 was executed.
[6]At that time, several of the beneficiaries whom D acted for (including P), did not have sufficient funds to pay D’s fees to conduct the matters relating to the deceased estate. As a gesture of goodwill, D agreed to accept a small retainer from each of them first. And to collect its fees when the said beneficiaries receive the proceeds of sale from the disposal of the assets of the deceased estate.
[7]The litigation in the said OS was disposed of at the Federal Court on 8.4.2015 in favour of D’s said clients (including P). The Federal Court had affirmed the list of fourteen beneficiaries and dismissed the application for a kin inquiry.
[8]After that, there was a wave of applications by putative beneficiaries making claims for a share of the deceased estate. The matters related to the deceased estate were finally disposed of on 3.10.2017 by the Federal Court, with a favourable outcome obtained in favour of P and the beneficiaries.
[9]D avers that it has honoured its part of the agreement by conducting the matters in respect of the deceased estate, on behalf of the beneficiaries represented by D, over the years from 2002 to 2018 without being paid any fees.
The tax invoices
[10]Through a letter dated 8.5.2018 from her solicitors, P gave notice that she had appointed the said solicitors to take over conduct of the matters conducted by D. Via its letter dated 23.5.2018, the said solicitors requested D to render its “detailed bill of charges for services rendered”.
[11]In response, D issued five tax invoices i.e. No. 1808142, No. 1808143, No. 1808149, No. 1808150 and No. 1808151 to the clients (including P). The said five tax invoices are for different and separate proceedings relating to the deceased estate as follows:
(a) Tax Invoice No. 1808142
Tax invoice No. 1808142 is in respect of the following proceedings brought by the then trustee of the deceased estate against P and sixteen others for the period 18.11.2002 to 31.8.2010:
(i)Penang High Court Originating Summons No. 24-1400-2001;
(ii)Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. P-02-224-2005.
(b) Tax invoice No. 1808143
Tax invoice No. 1808143 is in respect of the following proceedings brought by the then trustee of the deceased estate against P and sixteen others for the period 1.9.2010 to 8.5.2018:
(i)Penang High Court Originating Summons No. 24-1400-2001;
(ii)Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. P-02-224-2005;
(iii)Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. P-02-2774-11/2011;
(iv)Federal Court Civil Application No. 08(f)-115-02/2013 (P);
(v)Federal Court Civil Application No. 02(f)-35-07/2013 (P).
(c) Tax invoice No. 1808149
Tax invoice No. 1808149 is in respect of the following proceedings brought by eight putative beneficiaries against P and another:
(i)Penang High Court Civil Suit No. PA-22NCVC-32-02/201
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
