KIRANJIT RANDHAWA & CO (sebuah firma guaman yang didaftarkan di bawah Badan Peguam Malaysia) 1. ) SGV BUILDERS SDN BHD 2. ) GOO HUEY KIAM 3. ) WILLIAM CHU PET CHAW

KIRANJIT RANDHAWA & CO (sebuah firma guaman yang didaftarkan di bawah Badan Peguam Malaysia) 1. ) SGV BUILDERS SDN BHD 2. ) GOO HUEY KIAM 3. ) WILLIAM CHU PET CHAW

The magistrate erred in law and fact by striking out the writ and SOC; the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid legal fees disclose a reasonable cause of action under section 121 LPA and factual disputes about mode and quantum of fees require a full trial; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the striking out order set aside, and the matter remitted for trial before another magistrate with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Citation
BA-11ANCvC-6-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: KIRANJIT RANDHAWA & CO; Defendant/respondent: SGV BUILDERS SDN BHD; Defendant/respondent: GOO HUEY KIAM; Defendant/respondent: WILLIAM CHU PEH CHAW
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 January 2023
Case Number
BA-11ANCvC-6-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; striking out order set aside; writ and statement of claim restored; trial ordered before another magistrate
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Bill of Costs, Taxation of Costs, Magistrate Jurisdiction, Legal Profession Act 1976
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Contract Law Costs and Taxation Striking Out Bill of Costs Taxation of Costs Magistrate Jurisdiction +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KIRANJIT RANDHAWA & CO

Plaintiff/appellant

SGV BUILDERS SDN BHD

Defendant/respondent

GOO HUEY KIAM

Defendant/respondent

WILLIAM CHU PEH CHAW

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate had jurisdiction to strike out claims for legal fees and/or to entertain issues under the Legal Profession Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff issued a valid bill of costs or written authority entitling recovery of fees
  3. 3 Whether the writ and statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action under O18 r19 ROC

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate erred in law and fact by striking out the writ and SOC; the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid legal fees disclose a reasonable cause of action under section 121 LPA and factual disputes about mode and quantum of fees require a full trial; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the striking out order set aside, and the matter remitted for trial before another magistrate with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; striking out order set aside; writ and statement of claim restored; trial ordered before another magistrate

Orders

  • Costs of RM8000 awarded to plaintiff to be paid by defendants
  • Trial of the matters remitted to proceed before another magistrate