JCW

Justin was the counsel for the 1st to 3rd Defendants. In the taxation of Cost proceedings, the Plaintiff raised a preliminary objection that the defendant failed to produce a copy of the Bill of Costs together with the necessary papers and vouchers. The Court held that :- (1) Order 59 r. 20 does not stipulate as to the timeline for the production of the 'copy thereof with all necessary papers and vouchers'. Therefore, the purposive interpretation of these words would mean that they are to be produced as and when necessary. It was thus directory and not mandatory and the deliberate insertion of the word 'necessary' emphasised the directory nature of the order and denoted a discretion vested in the party wishing to tax his costs. (Sarjit Singh Khaira v. Government of Sarawak)”