James Foong JCA:

Brief Background

[1] The appellant is a contributory of a private limited company known as Nadchatiram Realities (1960) Sdn Bhd (the said company) that was wound-up pursuant to an order made by the High Court at Seremban on 5 September 1988. The official receiver (liquidator) was appointed liquidator of the said company. The said company is solvent. Concerned that the liquidator was proceeding to dispose off a piece of landed property of the said company, the appellant lodged a private caveat over the same. The liquidator, by way of an ex parte application, successfully removed the said caveat. When the appellant became aware of this, she applied, by way of summons in chamber in encl. 209, to set aside this ex parte order. The respondent (who is the 2nd defendant in the winding up petition of the said company) opposed this application. She was successful and encl. 209 was dismissed with costs awarded to her. Thereafter, the respondent filed a bill of costs claiming a sum of RM350,000 for getting up fee. On 4 January 2002, the getting up fee was taxed down to RM250,000. The registrar of the court who taxed the bill of costs was one Tuan Mohd Nasir bin Nordin (Tuan Mohd Nasir). Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant applied for a review of the registrar's decision. While this was pending, the appellant on 15 January 2002 wrote to the Chief Judge of Malaya complaining that Tuan Mohd Nasir was impartial and bias and should be disqualified from hearing any further matter on this case. The Chief Judge of Malaya replied to say that the appellant should make a formal application to the registrar for recusal. On 22 January 2002, a date fixed for assessment of damages for the removal of the caveat placed by the appellant, the registrar, Tuan Mohd Nasir, himself, perhaps having knowledge of the appellant's complaint against him, decided to voluntarily recuse himself from hearing all matters concerning the parties in this case and that of their families. Then on 1 March 2004, the Seremban High Court ordered that this case be transferred to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur. While the review of the decision of the registrar on the bill of costs was still pending, the appellant filed an application (encl. 256) seeking the following:

1. The hearing and decision of the registrar Tuan Mohd Nasir on 4 January 2002 (the taxed bill of costs) be declared null and void.

2. The bill of costs filed by the respondent be heard afresh before a registrar of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur.

3. A stay of proceedings, including the issuance of the allocatur for the amount taxed by the registrar on 4 January 2002.

4. In the alternative, for an injunction to prevent the respondent from extracting the allocatur from the court.

5. Any further order as is deemed fair and reasonable to grant and that costs be paid by the respondent.

[2] On 10 August 2005, Justice Ramly Ali presiding in the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed encl. 256 with costs. His reasons are basically these: the appellant's application is premature since the taxed costs is subject to review and the review is yet to be conducted, and if the appellant has any grievances or dissatisfactions over the attitude of the registrar these could be raised at the review stage before the judge. On the appellant's request for a stay of proceedings the learned judge found no special circumstances to support the granting of such order. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant appealed to us.

Preliminary Objection

[3] At the outset of the hearing of this appeal, the respondent raised a preliminary objection pursuant to s. 68(1)(c) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, which reads:

No appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal in any of the following cases: where the judgment or order relates to costs only, which by law are left to the discretion of the Court, except with the leave of the Court of Appeal.

[4] Since no leave has been obtained by the appellant from this court