JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The respondent is an advocate and solicitor and was at one time a member of the Penang State Assembly. The appellants are respectively the staff reporter, editor and publisher of the New Straits Times (hereinafter "the NST"), one of the leading local newspapers.

2. The respondent had sued the appellants for libel arising from the publication of a report entitled "Lawyer and trader conspired to cheat me, claims driver" which appeared in the NST on 12th September 1991, together with the respondent's photograph. The defence of the appellants was that the said report was a fair and accurate and contemporaneous report of proceedings publicly heard before a court lawfully exercising judicial authority. In those circumstances, they were protected under the defence of absolute privilege pursuant to section 11 of the Defamation Act 1957 (hereinafter "the Act").

3. On 10th November 2000, the learned High Court Judge (Wan Adnan, J.) allowed the respondent's claim and awarded the sum of RM 300,000 as general damages and the sum of RM 50,000 as aggravated damages plus interest thereon at 8 per cent per 2. annum from the date of judgment and costs. The appellants accordingly appealed to the Court of Appeal against that High Court decision as regards both liability and quantum. The respondent cross-appealed on the quantum.

4. On 1st August 2003, the Court of Appeal (Mokhtar Sidin, Arifin Zakaria and Rahmah Hussain JJCA) dismissed the appeal on liability but allowed the appellant's appeal on quantum. The award of general damages of RM 300,000 was reduced to RM 100,000 and the award of aggravated damages of RM 50,000 was set aside. The respondent's cross-appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs except that interest on the award was to run from the date of publication of the impugned report in the light of the ruling of this court in Karpal Singh v DP Vijandran (2003) 2 AMR 612. The appellants were awarded only half costs to be taxed.

5. On 3rd March 2004, this Court (Abdul Hamid Mohamad, Mohd Noor Ahmad and Pajan Singh Gill FCJJ) granted the appellants leave to appeal on the following question:

"whether a fair and accurate report of the proceedings publicly heard before the High Court may include an extract of the pleadings and if so, whether the pleadings should first be read out in the course of the proceedings before publication can be made of the pleadings".

6. We heard the arguments on 28th July 2004 and adjourned the matter to 4th August 2004, when we told both parties to submit further authorities on the question posed. Accordingly, we reserved judgment.

7. Section 11 (1) of the Act states:

"(1) A fair and accurate and contemporaneous report of proceedings publicly heard before any court lawfully exercising judicial authority within Malaysia and of the judgment, sentence or finding of any of any such court shall be absolutely privileged, and any fair and bona fide comment thereon shall be protected, although such judgment, sentence or finding be subsequently reversed, quashed or varied, unless at the time of the publication of such report or comment the defendant who claims the protection afforded by this section knew or ought to have known of such reversal, quashing or variation.".

8. The impugned report is reproduced below:

"NEWS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1991 Lawyer and trader conspired to cheat me, claims driver PENANG, Wed. - A lawyer allegedly conspired to cheat an illiterate man who had engaged him to facilitate the purchase of a property in Kulim, Kedah, the High Court was told today.

Driver G. Paramasevam claimed that his lawyer V. Muthusamy had breached their contract by allowing the land, worth $70,0000, to be transferred to a businessman nine years ago without his knowledge or permission.

He said that when he demanded an explanation from Mr Muthusamy, the lawyer claimed he did not know anything and asked him to leave his office.

He has named in his suit, businessman Varlivell alias V. Vadiveloo as t