(Bandar Seri Begawan, 2nd) The Court of Appeal upheld a judgment requiring the full taxation of legal fees and rejected a request to introduce further evidence in a case involving a client and their lawyer.
The appeal was filed against the judge's decision, which ordered the full taxation of Bills 8811 and 8815. The client, represented by two lawyers from LZ Hussain & Co law firm, opposed these charges, claiming that the bills contained numerous errors and excessive charges.
However, lawyers from H.S. Lim & Co opposed the application, asserting that the client failed to specify the disputed individual items, and that a taxation order would undermine her lien over the bills.
On December 16, 2024, the Chief Justice, along with two justices, ruled to reject the application to submit further evidence and agreed with the decision for the taxation of the bills.
The court determined that the decision to order full taxation of the bills fell under the judge's discretion and emphasized that the discrepancies raised by the client did not necessitate individual disputes for each item before the judge.
The court further emphasized that such an order would prevent the application from turning into a "mini-taxation exercise," thereby unnecessarily delaying proceedings.
The court also addressed the appellant's argument that partial taxation should be ordered.
The court noted that the client's failure to dispute every item in the bill did not imply acceptance of the charges, and the judge's order for full taxation of the entire bill was correct.
The court stated that turning the taxation application before the judge into a comprehensive review of each fee item was inappropriate and should be left to the taxing officer.
Another significant issue related to the procedural handling of the case. On November 23, 2024, the appellant wrote to the acting Secretary General requesting an extension for filing the notice of appeal against the judge's decision.
This letter was not copied to the client's legal representative at the time of sending, which the court found concerning. The court ruled that such communications must be shared with the opposing party to ensure transparency and fairness.
As a response, the court ordered the appellant to compensate the client for costs incurred due to this oversight.
The judgment also addressed the issue of interest on the bills. The court ruled that the matter of interest should be left for the taxing officer to determine, as the exact amount can only be ascertained after the completion of the taxing process.
The court refused to make any rulings on interest claims or counterclaims related to costs.
Ultimately, the court upheld the judge's decision, stating there was no reason to interfere with the order for the comprehensive taxation of legal fees.