JUDGMENT

Chao Hick Tin JC:

This is an application made by the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants, the applicants in these proceedings, for an order to set aside a notice of taxation and the accompanying bill of costs and the subsequent taxation proceedings. The bill in question (No. 64/1987) is that of Messrs Rodyk and Davidson who were the previous solicitors for the applicants in Suit No. 1401 of 1973 and Suit No. 2457 of 1981.

The undisputed facts are these. On or about 17 April 1986 a bill of costs ("the first bill") was rendered by M/s. Rodyk and Davidson to the applicants for a lump-sum of $150,177.50 plus $1,322.50 for disbursements. The applicants in their letter of 16 May 1986 to Rodyk & Davidson stated that they "would like to have the bill taxed by the High Court before we settle it please." (Emphasis added). Subsequently on 24 November 1986, Rodyk and Davidson put up a revised itemized bill of cost ("the second bill") for a total sum of $197,586.50, plus $1,322.50 in respect of disbursements, for taxation. By a letter dated 5 January 1987 Rodyk & Davidson forwarded the second bill to the applicants, who were informed that the second bill would be taxed by the registrar on 20 January 1987 at 10.00 a.m. and that if they needed any advice on the bill to contact Rodyk & Davidson. The second bill was accordingly taxed by the learned Deputy Registrar on 20 January 1987 at which proceedings the applicants were not present. The Deputy Registrar was informed that a first bill for a lump-sum of $150,177.50, plus disbursements, was put up; he then taxed off $47,409 from the second bill.

On 18 March 1987, the present solicitors for the applicants wrote to Rodyk & Davidson enquiring as to the basis on which Rodyk & Davidson had put up the second bill for taxation without the applicants' consent and without an order of Court granting leave to withdraw the first bill. In reply, Rodyk & Davidson stated that the second bill was taxed pursuant to s. 120(3) (now s. 117(3)) of the Legal Profession Act. The present solicitors further wrote on 4 May 1987 to Rodyk & Davidson to stress that the applicants in their letter of 6 May 1986 requested Rodyk & Davidson to tax the first bill and not any other bill. On 11 May 1987, the present solicitors further telexed to state that in the light of the authority reported at [1987] 2 MLJ 1xix, Rodyk & Davidson were not entitled to present the second bill for taxation. Rodyk & Davidson replied by telex on the same date disagreeing with that point of view and stated that the learned Deputy Registrar was aware of the case mentioned.

In a further attempt to resolve the matter, the present solicitors asked Rodyk & Davidson whether they would agree to a rehearing of the notice of taxation since no registrar's certificate had yet been issued. Rodyk & Davidson disagreed but proposed that the applicants proceed by way of a review under O. 59 r. 34 of the RSC and they would not object to the application for a review being made out of time. Thus, this application before me.

Miss Neo for the applicants raised the following points why Rodyk & Davidson are precluded from issuing the second bill:

(i) Rodyk and Davidson are bound by their first bill and may not, without leave of Court, file another bill for taxation;

(ii) For s. 117(3) of the Act to apply, there must be consent from both sides that the particular bill be taxed.

(iii) If Rodyk & Davidson were to have the liberty to submit a fresh bill which was different from the first, it would give rise to undue pressure being exerted on clients to settle the first bill.

Miss Neo also argued that even though the deputy registrar was informed that the first bill was only for a lump-sum of $151,000, the fact that a much higher second bill has been put up has prejudiced the applicants' position. She urged the Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to make the order prayed for in this application.

Mr. Govind for Rodyk & Davidson contended that the Court cannot resort to