RHB TRUSTEES BERHAD Pemegang Amanah Kepada Linggiu Valley Orang Asli (Jakuns) Trust v 1. ) TETUAN ROSLEY ZECHARIAH (Di Saman sebagai Firma) 2. ) Isharidah, Ho, Chong & Menon (Di Saman Sebagai Firma)

Case Significance

Treats the taxation of solicitors' bills under the Legal Profession Act 1976 — gross-sum bills, the time bar and residual inherent discretion — and holds that the sub-section 121(2) exclusion applies to senior counsel briefed through instructing solicitors on an agreed fee, with no direct solicitor-client relationship; the taxation application was dismissed with costs.

This High Court decision concerns an application to refer solicitors' bills for taxation under the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA 1976), brought by RHB Trustees Berhad as trustee of the Linggiu Valley Orang Asli (Jakuns) Trust against two firms of solicitors — Messrs. Rosley Zechariah and Messrs. Isharidah, Ho, Chong & Menon, each sued as a firm — that had rendered legal services in the long-running Trust litigation. The matter returned to the High Court after the Court of Appeal set aside an earlier striking-out and remitted the relevant questions of law for determination.

Four questions framed the analysis: whether the invoices annexed to the originating summons were "gross sum bills"; whether the plaintiff was out of time to seek taxation under the LPA 1976; whether the court nonetheless retained a discretion in its inherent jurisdiction to order taxation despite the time bar; and whether, in view of sub-section 121(2) of the LPA 1976, the issue of taxation applied to the second defendant firm at all.

On the fourth question the court's reasoning is instructive. The second defendant firm had provided the services of senior counsel, instructed by the first defendant firm; the court accepted that there had been no direct communication or solicitor-client relationship between the plaintiff and the second defendant, all instructions having passed through the instructing solicitors. It gave sub-section 121(2) of the LPA 1976, and the words "senior counsel" within it, a "purposive and harmonious interpretation" referring to a person briefed to attend to a case rather than one having a solicitor-client relationship, and held that, where the fee had been agreed without objection to the fee quote, the exclusion of taxation under sub-section 121(2) applied. The issue of taxation therefore did not apply to the second defendant.

Concluding that the reasons advanced did not warrant taxation, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application against both defendants, with costs of RM7,500 to each. The judgment is a useful treatment of the taxation regime under the LPA 1976 — the characterisation of gross-sum bills, the time bar and the residual inherent discretion — and of the operation of the sub-section 121(2) exclusion where fees are agreed and counsel is briefed through instructing solicitors.