Lampiran
lampiran 2) yang dikatakan SP527 difailkan melebihi masa, oleh itu mengkehendaki SP686 difailkan. [21] Dengan pemfailan SP686, Mahkamah Majistret tidak mendengar lebih lanjut dan menyarankan ia difailkan di Mahkamah Tinggi. Arahan ini tidak disokong oleh apa-apa dokumen atau perintah untuk menunjukkan ia adalah atas arahan Mahkamah menolak SP686 mahupun arahan untuk permohonan berkenaan dipindahkan ke Mahkamah Tinggi secara pemfailan semula. [22] Walau bagaimanapun, jikapun ini benar, Mahkamah ini berpendapat asas keputusan Mahkamah Majistret ialah kerana SP527 difailkan pada 2.7.2023, melebihi tempoh 3 bulan serahan invois keempat dan “detailed Bill of Cost” Defendan bertarikh 3.2.2023 (lihat eksibit “OISB-2” ms 23 Lampiran 2 Afidavit Sokongan anakguam [pdf of CMS]) yang dihadkan oleh seksyen 1211 (mengambil dapatan bahawa tiada persetujuan di antara kedua-dua pihak dan anakguam, dan anakguam mempertikaikan invois keempat), seksyen 1262 dan 1283 Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 di mana “Bill of Cost” ini diterima anakguam Defendan pada atau sebelum 14.2.2023. Kedua-dua SP527 dan SP686 pula mengandungi alegasi bahawa peguam iaitu Defendan telah bertindak secara cuai dan tidak professional dengan mengemukakan 1 PART VIII - REMUNERATION OF ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS Section 121. Where remuneration of advocate and solicitor not subject of agreement: (1) Where the remuneration of an advocate and solicitor in respect of contentious business done by him is not the subject of an agreement made pursuant to section 116, the solicitor’s bill of costs may at the option of the advocate and solicitor either contain detailed items or be for a gross sum: Provided that - (a) at any time before service upon him of a writ or other originating process for the recovery of costs included in a gross sum bill and before the expiration of three months from the date of the delivery to him of the bill, the party chargeable therewith may require the advocate and solicitor to deliver to him in lieu of the cost a bill containing detailed items, and the gross sum bill shall thereupon be of no effect; (b) where an action is commenced on a gross sum bill, the Court shall, if so requested by the party chargeable therewith before the expiration of one month from the service on that party of the writ or other originating process, order that the bill shall be taxed; (c) if a gross sum bill is referred to taxation, whether under this section or otherwise, nothing in this section shall prejudice any rules of court with respect to taxation and the advocate and solicitor shall furnish the taxing officer with such details of any of the costs covered by the bill as the taxing officer may require. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to fees paid to an advocate and solicitor who is briefed as a senior counsel. 2 Section 126. An order for taxation of costs to be made within 6 months of delivery of bill of costs (1) An order for the taxation of a bill of costs delivered by any advocate and solicitor may be obtained by a petition as a matter of course by the party chargeable therewith, or by any person liable to pay the cost either to the party chargeable or to the advocate and solicitor, at any time within six months from the delivery of the bill, or, by the advocate and solicitor after the expiration of one calendar month, and within a year from, the delivery. (2) The order shall contain such directions and conditions as the court thinks proper, and any party aggrieved by any order of Court may apply by summons in chambers that the same may be amended or varied or set aside. (3) In any case where an advocate and solicitor and his client consent to taxation of a solicitor's bill the Registrar may proceed to tax the bill notwithstanding that there is no order therefor. 3 PART IX - RECOVERY AND TAXATION OF COSTS Section 128. Order for taxation of advocate and solicitor's bill on notice given (1) After the expiration of six months from the delivery of a bill of costs, or after payment of the bill of costs, no order shall be made for taxation of a solicitor's bill of costs, except upon notice to the advocates and solicitors and under special circumstances to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court. (2) No such order for taxation shall in any event be made after the expiry of one year from the delivery of the bill of costs. representasi yang bertentangan bahawa tuntutan BCT boleh dibatalkan. (Deliberasi lanjut dinyatakan di dalam alasan penghakiman selepas ini) [23] Alegasi ini, pada dapatan Mahkamah ini menjurus kepada dakwaan bahawa peguam (Defendan) telah gagal melaksanakan tugas berhati-hati “professional negligence” terhadap anakguam, yang membuka tuntutan dalam SP ini kepada dakwaan-dakwaan lebih rumit dan pada pandangan Mahkamah Majistret lebih sesuai dirujuk ke Mahkamah Tinggi. [24] Mahkamah ini telah melihat prinsip sebagaimana yang digariskan dalam kes SP Veloo & Co (supra) di atas yang menyatakan seperti berikut: “Jurisprudence Relating to Bill of Costs, Taxation and LPA 1976 for Contentious Matter [10] If there is no agreement for fees the LPA 1976 envisages at least three types of bill for purpose of costs between the solicitor and client. They are as follows: (a) gross bill (s.121 LPA 1976) (b) detailed bill (s.121 LPA 1976) (c) itemise bill of costs for taxation (s.132 LPA 1976). [11] It must be noted that a solicitor’s bill can be a gross bill or detailed bill. A detailed bill mentioned in section 121(1) of LPA 1976 has nothing to do with a bill of costs for purpose of taxation under RHC 1980 or RC 2012. Courts in their decisions have often created confusion by asserting a detailed bill must be in the form of bill of taxation as set out in RHC 1980 and that too when dealing with section 121 of LPA where RHC 1980 or RC 2012 does not come into operation at all. Section 121 is independent of section 132 of LPA 1976. RHC 1980 or RC 2012 only comes into operation when it relates section 132 of LPA. [12] There is also a difference in phrase in the use of bill of costs in section 121 and section 128. Section 121(1) refers to solicitor’s bill of costs. Section 128 refers to an order for taxation of costs. The distinction is not one of an apple and an orange but one of a marble and pumpkin. This distinction is further emphasised by section 126(1) which states ‘an order for taxation of bill of costs’. The bill referred to here is the bill presented by the solicitor under section 121 and not the bill of costs related to taxation mentioned in RHC 1980 or RC 2012. Even section 130 refers to delivery of solicitor’s bill of costs and that bill can be a subject matter of taxation of bill of costs. If the court orders taxation of solicitor’s bill of costs, the taxation of the bill must follow the procedure set out for taxation of bill of costs under RHC 1980 and now under RC 2012. [Emphasis added]. [13] The taxation of bill of costs of a solicitor’s bill was provided for in detail in RHC 1980. However, in RC 2012 the details required of a ‘taxation of bill of costs of solicitors’ have been dropped leaving only Form 117 which relates to Order 59 rule 7 and not really Order 59 rule 17 of RC 2012. We will not dwell on the RC 2012 for the purpose of this appeal, save to say that the phrase “itemised bills of costs” is no more found in RC 2012 and the words bill of costs also do not appear except in Form 117 which reads as follows: …” [25] Dengan bersandarkan kepada kes ini dan dengan melihat SP1306 yang difailkan di hadapan Mahkamah ini, Mahkamah ini berpendapat SP1306 yang difailkan oleh anakguam di hadapan Mahkamah ini mengandungi kekeliruan ini apabila “intitulement” merujuk kepada kesemua peruntukan bersabit bil kos apabila memetik peruntukan-peruntukan berikut “Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 116, 121, 124, 126, 128 dan 132 Akta Profesyen Undang-Undang 1976 dan peraturan yang dibuat di bawahnya”. Kes SP Veloo & Co (supra) sebenarnya bertujuan menjelaskan kekeliruan ini. [26] Meskipun khilaf dalam menyatakan seksyen dalam “intitulement”, walau bagaimanapun relif dalam SP1306 ini merujuk secara spesifik kepada seksyen 126 Akta Profesyen Undang-Undang 1976. Seksyen 126 memperuntukkan untuk “BOC” ditaksirkan dalam masa 6 bulan serahan bill dan ia perlu difailkan oleh pihak yang mempertikaikannya. Serahan bill ini merujuk kepada invois 4 dan juga “BOC” bertarikh 3.2.2023 secara AR Berdaftar dan diterima oleh anakguam berdasarkan surat anakguam bertarikh 3.5.2023 kepada Defendan mencadangkan “BOC” ditaksirkan. SP1306 ini, walau bagaimanapun, hanya difailkan di Mahkamah ini pada 17.11.2023. [27] Mahkamah Rayuan di dalam kes SP Veloo (supra) jelas menekankan kepentingan mematuhi had masa yang ditetapkan jika remedy secara proses perundangan secara litigasi di Mahkamah yang ingin dipilih oleh pihak yang mempertikaikan, apabila Mahkamah Rayuan menyatakan seperti berikut: “[20] Section 128 must be read together with sections 121 and 126 for purpose of clarity. The law gives a right to a client to get the solicitor’s bill of costs taxed. The application must be made within six months and that can be done as of right. However, the application can also be made after the 6th month and within a year upon special circumstances been proved to the satisfaction of the court. The threshold test here is very high. [21] What is important to note is that if section 128 timeline is not adhered to by the client, he will not have the privilege to get the solicitor’s bill of costs to be taxed through the court process. What will be left to address his grievance will only be related to a common law right to dispute the claim. It is very unlikely for the courts to entertain a complaint on the solicitor’s bill of costs when the statutory mechanism was not adhered. Only in very rare and exceptional circumstances will the court want to reopen the issue of bill of costs”. [28] Tindakan anakguam ini, pada dapatan Mahkamah juga berbangkit daripada pemfailan writ oleh Defendan bagi menuntut amaun yang tidak dibayar oleh anakguam melalui JF-A72NCVC-70-10/2023 yang pada dapatan Mahkamah, layak difailkan menurut seksyen 121 Akta. Berdasarkan surat-menyurat dan tuntutan Defendan melalui JF-A72NCVC-70-10/2023 ini (meskipun JF-70 ini tidak dilampirkan), pemfailan SP1306 di hadapan Mahkamah ini oleh anakguam telah melebihi tempoh 3 bulan di bawah seksyen 121 dan melebihi 6 bulan di bawah seksyen 126. [29] Penjelasan yang diberi bahawa permohonan lebih awal telah dibuat di Mahkamah Majistret tetapi disarankan oleh Mahkamah Majistret untuk difailkan di Mahkamah Tinggi adalah kerana dakwaan yang turut dibuat dalam permohonan tersebut bahawa Defendan telah tidak menjalankan tugas secara berhati-hati yang dipertanggungjawabkan ke atas seorang peguam, selain ia melibatkan permohonan untuk lanjutan masa.4 [30] Mahkamah ini berpendapat keputusan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Majistret adalah tepat kerana ia membabitkan isu bidangkuasa Mahkamah. Atas alasan-alasan ini, tiada apa-apa keadaan istimewa yang mewajarkan permohonan untuk lanjutan masa bagi memfailkan SP1306 ini kerana wakil anakguam dalam SP527, SP686 dan SP1306 sepatutnya lazim dan maklum isu-isu bidangkuasa ini serta had masa di bawah undang-undang yang berkaitan. -Tandatangan- (NURULHUDA NUR’AINI BINTI MOHAMAD NOR) Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Johor Bahru Bertarikh: 17.10.2024 4 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Revised - 1972) SCHEDULE [Subsection 25(2)] ADDITIONAL POWERS OF HIGH COURT 8. Time Power to enlarge or abridge the time prescribed by any written law for doing any act or taking any prceeding, although any application therefor be not made until after the expiration of the time prescribed: Provided that this provision shall be without prejudice to any written law relating to limitation. KAUNSEL Bagi pihak Plaintif: Krishnan Nair Tetuan N. Krishnan Nair & Co Peguambela & Peguamcara No. 109, Jalan Bukit Impian 10 Taman Impian Emas 81300 Johor Bahru Johor Bagi pihak Responden: Izzat Ibrahim Tetuan H T Lim & Partners Peguambela & Peguamcara No. 7A, Jalan Susur Kulai 1 Taman Seraya Kulai Besar 81000 Kulai Johor