Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitor's fees

Legal area

Court

24 Sept 2024

1. ) TETUAN ASPIRASI MAJUMAS SDN BHD 2. ) TETUAN H.ALI & Associates ( Didakwa sebagai firma guaman) 3. ) HUSSIN BIN ALI (Praktis dan beramal di bawah firma dengan nama dan gaya tetuan H.Ali & Associates) MASTURA BINTI MOHAMED ARIF

Citation

BA-12BNCvC-18-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12BNCvC-18-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court affirmed the Sessions Court: D1 breached contractual and duty of care obligations by failing to rectify structural defects, respondent's termination was lawful under section 57(2) Contracts Act 1950 (doctrine of frustration/impossibility), D2 and D3 breached duties as solicitors/stakeholders and must refund the advance fees, the separate Sebut Harga was not incorporated into the signed Agreement, and D1's counterclaim for loss of profits and costs was unsustainable and therefore dismissed.
23 Mar 2023

TETUAN ZURINA, HAFIZAH & CO. (Menyaman sebagai sebuah firma) 1. ) MOHD SOLEHHUDIN BIN ABDUL 2. ) NUR MOHD AMRUL SHAFWAN BIN BHARUM

Citation

CA-A72NCvC-182-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-A72NCvC-182-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the appointment and the expenditures were established by affidavit and exhibits (including a cancellation letter sent by the defendants), the defendants' denials were shadowy and unmeritorious and did not disclose triable issues; accordingly the Order 14 application succeeded in part and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the properly proved advances and solicitor's fees totaling RM21,814 plus costs RM500; exemplary damages were not proven and rejected.
18 Mar 2022

TAN CHIN YEAM NAZLAN BIN ABDUL RAZAK

Citation

CA-A72NCvC-174-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-A72NCvC-174-09/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court held summary judgment was appropriate because the written Warrant to Act established the retainer and defendants' denials were afterthoughts not creating triable issues, the bill of costs was presumed bona fide and the defendant failed to petition for taxation within the statutory period under Section 126 LPA 1976; change of solicitor one day before trial did not negate liability for fees incurred.
27 May 2021

ABDUL RAHIM BIN RAJUDIN MD ROSNI BIN MD MINHAD

Citation

WA-A52NCvC-556-06/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-A52NCvC-556-06/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove most of the invoiced sums; the court applied burden of proof and adverse inference principles to exclude undocumented vouchers and duplicated claims, accepted only properly evidenced disbursement (expert report RM1,007) and proven bank transfers receipted by defendant (RM15,500 in loans), and exercised its discretion to fix a reasonable getting-up fee at RM7,300 and disbursements at RM3,649; found the invoice contained unreasonable and duplicated claims potentially amounting to professional misconduct.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) TETUAN ASPIRASI MAJUMAS SDN BHD 2. ) TETUAN H.ALI & Associates ( Didakwa sebagai firma guaman) 3. ) HUSSIN BIN ALI (Praktis dan beramal di bawah firma dengan nama dan gaya tetuan H.Ali & Associates) MASTURA BINTI MOHAMED ARIF

TETUAN ZURINA, HAFIZAH & CO. (Menyaman sebagai sebuah firma) 1. ) MOHD SOLEHHUDIN BIN ABDUL 2. ) NUR MOHD AMRUL SHAFWAN BIN BHARUM

TAN CHIN YEAM NAZLAN BIN ABDUL RAZAK

ABDUL RAHIM BIN RAJUDIN MD ROSNI BIN MD MINHAD