1. Appeal against dismissal of a solicitor's claim for fees allegedly owed by client. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 2554
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
ROSLAN MAT NOR, J
TETUAN KANG & KANG – Appellant
Versus
DATUK DR JASBIR SINGH HARBHAJAN SINGH – Respondent
[RAYUAN SIVIL NO: WA-12ACY-7-07/2025]
Under Section 118 of the Legal Profession Act 1976, courts must assess whether a solicitor-client cost agreement is fair and reasonable before enforcement. If unfair, the court should order taxation of costs rather than dismissing the claim based on invoice regularity or estoppel.
Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Sections 116 and 118 - Written agreements on costs between solicitor and client - Enforcement of cost agreements - Court's duty to determine if an agreement is fair and reasonable - If such an agreement is deemed unfair or unreasonable, the court may declare it void and order that the costs be taxed (Paras 21-24).
(B) Appeal - Scope of review - Findings of a trial judge should not be disturbed by an appellate court unless there is a manifest error or a failure of proper judicial scrutiny of the evidence presented (Para 12).
(C) Inherent Jurisdiction - Courts maintain an inherent jurisdiction to oversee and control issues regarding costs between solicitors and clients, serving as a supplement to statutory regulations (Para 17).
Facts of the case:
A law firm sought to recover outstanding legal fees from a former client. The firm issued invoices for services provided, while the client argued that a final bill had already been issued and that a subsequent agreement reached via electronic communication had reduced the total amount owed. The lower court dismissed the firm's claim, concluding that the firm was estopped from issuing further invoices after the final bill had been served.
Findings of Court:
The lower court erred by failing to apply the statutory mechanism for the enforcement of cost agreements under the Legal Profession Act 1976. Instead of examining whether the costs were fair and reasonable, the lower court focused on the regularity of the invoices and the doctrine of estoppel.
Issues: Whether the lower court committed a manifest error by refusing the fee claim based on estoppel and the issuance of a final bill, rather than determining the fairness and reasonableness of the cost agreement under Section 118 of the Legal Profession Act 1976.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 118 of the Legal Profession Act 1976, the court is mandated to scrutinize whether a cost agreement is fair and reasonable before it can be enforced. If the court finds the terms to be unfair, it should order the fees to be taxed in accordance with the law. The lower court's failure to perform this statutory duty and its reliance on estoppel to dismiss a cost claim constitutes a manifest error requiring appellate intervention.
Result: Decision of the Sessions Court set aside; appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- legal profession
Table of Contents
2. Solicitor argued fees due under invoices; client argued final bill had been issued and paid, and further invoices were improper. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Trial judge erroneously focused on invoice regularity instead of enforcing the fee agreement under Section 118 of the Legal Profession Act 1976. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
4. Under Section 118 of the Legal Profession Act 1976, a solicitor-client fee agreement must be tested for fairness and reasonableness by the court. (Para 23 , 24 )
5. Appeal allowed; trial judge's decision set aside and solicitor's originating summons granted. (Para 26 )
6. What is the proper approach for a court when enforcing a solicitor-client fee agreement under Section 118 of the Legal Profession Act 1976?
The court must first determine whether the agreement is fair and reasonable; if not, it may declare it void or vary it. (Para 23 , 24 )
7. Can a court refuse to enforce a fee agreement solely because further invoices were issued after a final bill?
No; the court must assess the agreement's fairness under Section 118, not merely the regularity of invoicing. (Para 25 )
8. What is the court's inherent jurisdiction regarding solicitor-client costs?
The court has inherent jurisdiction to control and supervise costs between solicitor and client, supplementing statutory provisions. (Para 17 )
9. Under what circumstances may a court order taxation of a solicitor's bill under its inherent jurisdiction?
The court may order taxation of part or all of a solicitor's bill under its inherent jurisdiction, even without statutory power. (Para 17 )
ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN
Pendahuluan
1. Ini adalah rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen yang menolak tuntutan yuran guaman yang dikatakan terhutang oleh Responden kepada Perayu.
2. Saman Pemula ini telah disokong oleh afidavit Charanjeet Kaur A/P Sukhbir Singh. Plaintif adalah sebuah firma guaman. Pada 22.07.2021 hingga 16.02.2023 terdapat perhubungan peguamcara dan klien di antara Plaintif dan Defendan. la telah melibatkan satu tindakan di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Guaman Sivil No. WA-22NCVC-165-03/2022.
3. Plaintif telah dikatakan mengeluarkan invois STI 23052 dan invois STI 23054 dan menghantarnya kepada Defendan. Invois STI 23052 itu adalah dikeluarkan berasaskan sebutharga. la menurut Plaintif adalah tergolong di dalam seksyen 116 Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 .
4. Pada 21.01.2023, Plaintif menghantar surat kepada Defendan supaya ianya ditaksirkan melalui petisyen ke Mahkamah sejajar dengan seksyen 126 Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 .
5. Plaintif menyatakan tuntutan itu adalah wajar, adil dan adalah suatu yang bona fide. Plaintif juga menyatakan sebelum ini segala bil telah dijelaskan dengan sewajarnya oleh Defendan.
6. Defendan melalui afidavit Dr. Jasbir Singh A/L Harbhajan Singh, Defendan menyatakan dia telah membayar sejumlah RM142,600.00 berkenaan perwakilan Plaintif. Ini telah disenaraikan di perenggan 9 afidavit Dr. Jasbir Singh.
7. Defendan mengatakan bahawa bagi invois STI 23052, STI 23054 tidak wajar kerana Plaintif telah mengeluarkan satu bil akhir melalui invois STI 23006 pada 27.02.2023. Bil invois itu berjumlah RM52,545.00.
Keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen
8. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen di dalam Alasan Penghakiman telah mengatakan bahawa adalah tidak wajar untuk pengeluaran invois baru STI 23052 dan STI 23054 untuk kerja-kerja yang sama. Ini ditambah pula bil akhir telah dikeluarkan. Mahkamah Sesyen berpendapat apabila bil akhir dikeluarkan maka tiada bil tambahan wajar dikeluarkan. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah merujuk kes Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn. Bhd. V. Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank [1995] 4 CLJ 283.
9. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen telah membuat dapatan bahawa terdapat perbincangan potongan yuran pada 13.04.2023 di mana Plaintif bersetuju mengurangkan kepada RM31.223.10 dan potongan tambahan RM500.00 menjadikan amaunnya adalah RM30,723.
10.
10. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen juga berpendapat pada 31.05.2023, Perayu telah sahkan jumlah tersebut yang dipersetujui melalui perbualan Whatsapp. Ini dinyatakan di para 21-24 Alasan Penghakiman. Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berpendapat ia mengikat pihak-pihak.
11. Berdasarkan kepada penelitian keterangan tersebut Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen berpendapat bahawa perayu diestop daripada mengeluarkan invois selepas invois terakhir telah dikeluarkan.
Analisa
12. Adalah menjadi prinsip undang-undang yang mantap bahawa keputusan dan dapatan Hakim bicara tidak wajar diganggu oleh Hakim yang mendengar rayuan. la hanya boleh diganggu jika terdapat kesilapan yang ketara dan kegagalan penelitian kehakiman yang sewajarnya terhadap keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan.
13. Hubungan di antara peguam dan anak guam adalah sesuatu yang istimewa. Segala perkhidmatan yang diberikan adalah tertakluk kepada kos yang dikehendaki untuk dilunaskan. Bagi kes yang melibatkan guaman, kos berkemungkinan telah dipersetujui melalui perjanjian peguam dan anak guam di bawah seksyen 116 Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 . la tertakluk kepada seksyen 118 Akta yang sama.
14. Sekiranya tiada perjanjian sedemikian, taksiran kos boleh dikemukakan kepada Mahkamah melalui petisyen dalam tempoh 6 bulan selepas penyerahan bil kos seperti yang dinyatakan di bawah seksyen 126 Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 .
15. Perayu dalam kes ini berhujah bahawa bagi invois STI 23052 telah dikeluarkan kepada Responden pada 02.08.2023 iaitu untuk merangkumi pembelaan permohonan pembatalan yang telah dibuat sementara invois STI 23054 pula adalah dihantar kepada Responden pada 02.08.2023 yang berkaitan dengan permohonan penggantungan. Invois STI 23054 tel
