The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision ordering the full taxation of solicitor’s bills and dismissed an application to introduce further evidence in a case involving a client and their solicitor.
The appeal was brought forward against the decision of Justice Lunn, who had ordered the taxation of Bills 8811 and 8815 in their entirety. The client Ting Jack Chai, represented by lawyers Pengiran Shahyzul Pengiran Abdul Rahman and Too Shu Vun of Messrs LZ Hussain & Co, had disputed the charges, claiming that the bills contained numerous errors and excessive charges.
However, the solicitor Megan Lee Ye Kiat of Messrs Ho & Siong opposed the application, asserting that the client had failed to specify individual disputed items and that a taxation order would prejudice her lien over the bills.
Chief Justice Steven Chong, along with Justices Michael Lunn and Sir Peter Gross, delivered the judgment on December 16, 2024, dismissing the application to introduce further evidence and agreeing with Justice Lunn’s decision on the taxation of the bills.
The court found that the decision to order the full taxation of the bills was within the judge’s discretion, stressing that the discrepancies raised by the client did not require each item to be individually disputed before the judge.
The court further emphasised that such an order would avoid turning the application into a “mini-taxation exercise” that would unnecessarily delay proceedings.
The court also addressed Lee’s argument that partial taxation should have been ordered. It noted that the client’s failure to dispute every single item in the bills did not imply acceptance of those charges, and the judge was right to order the taxation of the entire bills.
The court pointed out that it would be inappropriate to turn an application for taxation before a judge into a full-blown review of each cost item, which should instead be left to the taxing master.
Another important issue arose with regard to the procedural conduct of the case. On November 23, 2024, Lee sent a letter to the Acting Chief Registrar, requesting an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against Justice Lunn’s decision.
This letter was sent without being copied to the legal representatives of the client, a matter the court found troubling. The court ruled that such communication should have been shared with the opposing party to ensure transparency and fairness.
In response, the court ordered Lee to pay for the costs incurred by the client due to this oversight.
The judgment also addressed the issue of interest on the bills. The court ruled that the matter of interest would be left to the taxing master, as the exact amounts could only be ascertained after the taxation process.
The court declined to make any determination on the claim for interest or any counterclaim related to the fees.
In conclusion, the court affirmed Justice Lunn’s decision, stating that there was no basis to interfere with the order for full taxation of the solicitor’s bills. – Fadley Faisal
