High Court refuses to strike out RM200,000 fee refund suit against Sri Ram’s estate
Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram is seen outside the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex on September 12, 2022. — Picture by Hari Anggara
Summary
- The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has denied a motion by Chandra Sri Ram, the widow of the late Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, to dismiss a lawsuit demanding the return of RM200,000 in legal fees.
- The plaintiff, Khoo Gee Tat, had engaged Sri Ram for his son's criminal appeal, but the fees were contested after the services were not fully rendered due to Sri Ram's death.
- Justice Alice Loke ruled that Gee Tat's claim was not "obviously unsustainable," necessitating a comprehensive hearing to resolve the legal and factual issues involved.
- Chandra Sri Ram is appealing the decision.
By Malay Mail
First Published: Wednesday, 26 Aug 2026 2:44 PM MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 26 — The High Court has dismissed an application by the widow of the late Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram to strike out a lawsuit seeking the return of RM200,000 in legal fees paid to him before his death.
Justice Alice Loke ruled that plaintiff Khoo Gee Tat’s claim was not “obviously unsustainable” and should proceed to a full hearing on its merits, FMT reported.
Khoo engaged Sri Ram in 2022 as lead counsel to represent his son, Adrian Khoo, in a criminal appeal before the Court of Appeal.
A pro forma invoice issued by Sri Ram’s law firm, Messrs Sri Ram, fixed the legal fees at RM349,800, after which Gee Tat made four instalment payments totalling RM200,000.
Sri Ram died on Jan 29, 2023, before concluding the appeal, which the appellate court eventually heard and disposed of on Dec 5 that year.
Gee Tat subsequently sought a refund of the RM200,000 on the grounds that the agreed legal services were never fully rendered.
He filed the present lawsuit against Sri Ram’s widow, Chandra Sri Ram, in her capacity as the executor and trustee of the late judge’s estate.
Chandra applied to strike out the suit, contending among other arguments that Gee Tat was not Sri Ram’s client and consequently lacked the legal standing to sue.
Loke rejected that argument, holding that Gee Tat had directly engaged Sri Ram, paid the retainer fee, received the invoice, and maintained communication with him throughout the appeal.
In her 10-page judgment, Loke noted that the definition of “client” under the Legal Profession Act 1976 could encompass Gee Tat.
She also dismissed assertions that the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or barred under the principle of res judicata (previously decided matter).
Loke held that the competing arguments over whether the RM200,000 was refundable involved substantial legal and factual disputes requiring detailed examination, making the case unsuitable for summary disposal.
Lawyers Ng Choon Kiat and Ahmad Nur Zharif Rosdi represented Gee Tat, while Alvin Oh, Thooi Zi Hui, and Sew Chang Peng acted for Chandra, who has filed an appeal against the decision.
Very odd.
ReplyDeleteIn principle, service fees for services not rendered , are refundable, at least partially for the work not performed.
But I find this case and ruling strange.
Shouldn't the refund liability be borne by his legal firm ? Instead of his estate, which are personal assets, leaving the widow to deal with the matter.
The services were committed by his legal firm, therefore the suit to recover the funds should be responded by the firm.
The estate may be liable only if there was some fraud or criminal conduct involved, which his firm may argue they are not obliged to pay .
I did not see any such case here.