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 J