MOHAMED HANIFF BIN KHATRI ABDULLA v 1. ) PARTI PRIBUMI BERSATU MALAYSIA 2. ) TAN SRI DATO' HAJI MAHIADDIN BIN MD YASIN 3. ) DATO' SERI HAMZAH ZAINUDIN 4. ) DATO' MOHAMED SALLEH BAJURI

Case Significance

Confirms that a claim for professional fees will fail where the services are found to have been rendered voluntarily and gratuitously, without any expectation of payment, even where the services themselves were extensive.

This High Court decision concerns a claim by an advocate for substantial legal fees said to be owed for services rendered to a political party and its office-holders, and the question whether those services were rendered on a pro bono basis. The plaintiff, an advocate and solicitor, sued the first defendant, a political party, together with individuals holding its principal offices, for payment of fees for legal services, which included the setting up and registration of the party, heading its legal bureau, holding meetings, filing court actions and giving legal advice. The plaintiff had rendered a bill detailing the services, which the defendants did not acknowledge or pay, and the defendants denied both the plaintiff's appointment as their legal adviser and any promise of payment, contending that whatever services were rendered had been provided voluntarily. After a full trial on oral and documentary evidence, the Court treated the plaintiff's involvement as established: the evidence clearly showed that he had been actively involved in setting up the party and had represented it in legal proceedings and correspondence with the authorities. The decisive issue was whether the services had been rendered with an expectation of payment. The Court found that, although the plaintiff had provided extensive services, they had been rendered voluntarily and without any expectation of payment, on a pro bono basis, and that the claim was an afterthought brought in the aftermath of a change in political circumstances. It dismissed the plaintiff's claim with costs. The judgment illustrates that a claim for professional fees will fail where the services are found to have been rendered gratuitously, without any expectation of payment. The decision is a reminder that a professional who chooses to act without a clear arrangement for payment may be found to have acted gratuitously, and that a bill rendered only after the relationship has soured will be scrutinised carefully before the court treats long-provided services as having been intended to be paid for.