JUDGMENT

Siti Norma Yaakob J:

The present proceedings before me relate to an application under O. 56 r. 2(2) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 by a taxing advocate to adjourn into open Court further arguments on the notice of appeal filed against the decision of the Registrar dated 5 May 1983. The Registrar had, on 4 May 1983 ruled against the objection raised by the party chargeable on a bill of costs, (the defendant in the suit) by holding that she had the jurisdiction to tax the itemised solicitor and client bill dated 17 March 1983 which was then before her for taxation. Being dissatisfied with this decision, the party chargeable filed a notice of appeal dated 5 May 1983 and after hearing argument in chambers, I had allowed the appeal and ordered that the only bill the Registrar can tax is the gross sum bill dated 11 August 1982 which had been earlier presented by the taxing advocate to the party chargeable. Being dissatisfied with this order, the taxing advocate had applied to adjourn the notice of appeal into open Court for further arguments.

A brief background into this case shows that the party chargeable had retained the taxing advocates to act on her behalf in this enticement suit. The action however never went on trial as the plaintiff applied for and was granted leave to discontinue the action. The action was subsequently dismissed and the Court also ordered party and party costs which has since been taxed. Subsequently, the taxing advocates presented a gross sum bill dated 11 August 1982 to the party chargeable wherein a sum of RM20,275 was charged as the getting up fee and another sum of RM316.20 by way of disbursement making a total of RM20,591.20. Being dissatisfied with the getting up fee, the party chargeable had in a letter dated 6 October 1982 requested for an itemised bill to be taxed by the Registrar. Pursuant to this request, the taxing advocates submitted an itemised bill of costs dated 17 March 1983 wherein the getting up fee alone is charged at RM50,000, thereby, inflating the total costs due to RM55,423. The issue before me then was which bill is to be taxed by the Registrar. Is it the gross sum bill for RM20,521.20 dated 11 August 1982 or the itemised bill of costs for RM55,423 dated 17 March 1983?

The main objection raised by the party chargeable before me were (1) that the application under O. 56 r. 2(2) has been made out of time, (2) since she only consented to the gross sum bill to be itemised and taxed, the Registrar can only tax an itemised bill which shall not exceed the amount charged under the gross sum bill.

Under O. 56 r. 2(2), all applications for further arguments into open Court must be made within 4 days of the order made by the Judge in chambers. In computing any period of time less than 7 days, O. 3 r. 2(5) excludes weekly holiday or public holiday. My order in chambers was made on 20 May 1983, a Friday. The taxing advocates' application under O. 56 r. 2(2) is dated 25 May 1983. Discounting the intervening Sunday, this application therefore falls within the 4-day limit fixed by O. 56 r. 2(2) and is therefore not time barred.

Coming to the more substantial objection, Counsel for the taxing advocates has urged me to lay down guidelines as to how Counsels should conduct themselves when presenting bill of costs to their clients as he maintains there are apparent inconsistencies in s. 121(1) and of the Legal Profession Act 1976, (the Act) relating to remuneration of advocates and solicitors in contentious matters. Reading these two sections, I find no apparent inconsistency but that they compliment each other. Under s. 121(1), in the absence of any express agreement as to costs, an advocate has the option of either presenting a gross sum bill to his client or an itemised bill. If a gross sum bill has been presented, the client may, within 3 months of such presentation, require the advocate to deliver instead a bill with detailed items. When such a request has been made, the advocate mu