1. ) FAZLI BIN SUBOH 2. ) UMI AL-KHAIR FATIMAH BINTI IDRIS 3. ) NUR DAMIA LUTFIAH BINTI FAZLI (SEORANG BUDAK MELALUI FAZLI BIN SUBOH BAPA DAN SAHABAT WAKILNYA) v 1. ) DR. FATIMAH BT AHMAD FAUZI 2. ) DR. VIJAYAN MUNUSAMY 3. ) PENGARAH HOSPITAL KUALA LUMPUR 4. ) KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MALAYSIA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Case Significance

Illustrates that under Order 59 rule 17 of the Rules of Court 2012 taxed costs stand unless shown to be of an unreasonable amount or unreasonably incurred, and a party challenging them must adduce evidence rather than merely tabulate the sums.

This High Court decision concerns an appeal to the judge in chambers against a Deputy Registrar's taxation of a solicitor's bill of costs. The respondent law firm, Tetuan Zailan & Co, had acted for the appellants — former clients, one of them a child suing through his father — in a medical negligence suit that succeeded at both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Upon the conclusion of that litigation the firm rendered its bill, and on taxation the Deputy Registrar allowed the sum of RM396,177.00 claimed in the notice of taxation in its entirety, together with costs of the proceedings. The appellants appealed. The central question was whether Order 59 rule 16 or Order 59 rule 17 of the Rules of Court 2012 governed the taxation, and whether the amount stated in the bill of costs was reasonable. The court held that the applicable principle, under Order 59 rule 17(2), is that all costs shall be allowed except in so far as they are of an unreasonable amount or have been unreasonably incurred. It found that the respondent had produced all the supporting documents for the Deputy Registrar to scrutinise, and that the appellants had adduced no evidence to show that the firm's legal fees were unreasonable; merely tabulating the invoiced amounts was insufficient to displace the taxed figure. Because the Deputy Registrar had not found any item in the bill to be of an unreasonable amount or unreasonably incurred, and the appellants gave the court no valid reason to hold otherwise, the court was unable to say that the Deputy Registrar had erred. It dismissed the appeal with costs of RM2,500.00, subject to allocatur. The judgment illustrates that a party challenging a taxed bill of costs must adduce evidence of unreasonableness, and that a bare tabulation of the sums claimed will not disturb the taxing officer's assessment.