Right of hearing must be granted in adversarial proceedings to uphold natural justice.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 20 September 2012 which allowed the respondent's appeal. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 18 June 2013 and 29 July 2015 on the following four questions of law:

(i) Whether a person on an occasion of privilege as between himself and some other person, makes some defamatory statement affecting a third person who has nothing to do with the privilege occasion, that third person would have a right of action against that person making the defamatory statement?

(ii) Whether the defence of qualified privilege which apply to a defamatory statement made on an occasion of privilege applies to a republication thereof to a third party?

(iii) Having regard to the established principle that parties are bound by their pleadings, may the Court of Appeal hearing an appeal against the decision of the High Court, invoke s 69(4) of the of Judicature Act 1964 to substitute the defence as pleaded in the case before the High Court with another defence which was neither pleaded nor raised before the High Court?

(iv) Whether an Appellate Court, after having confined the parties on an appeal before it, to only one issue of defence in law for purpose of the appeal, may then avail the appellant another issue of defence which the said appellant had never pleaded nor raised in the Court of First Instance, to allow the appellant's appeal, based on the issue of defence in law which the Court of Appeal availed to the appellant under s 69(4) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ?

[2] In this ground of judgment, the appellant is referred to as the plaintiff and the respondent as the defendant, as in the High Court.

Background Facts

[3] On 14 December 1998, a police report was lodged by the defendant. The contents of the police report included an allegation of a conspiracy to cheat the defendant purportedly perpetrated by the law firms of M/s A Zahari Kanapathy Thulasi, together with the plaintiff.

[4] Following this, the defendant sent a letter of complaint dated 25 August 1999 to the advocates and solicitors Disciplinary Board ("DB") against members of the law firm. This letter contained references to the plaintiff in a derogatory manner. The plaintiff was the client of the solicitors, at the material time, against whom the complaint was lodged.

[5] The plaintiff took offence at the contents of the letter of complaint and the police report. A letter of demand was sent to the defendant, through his then solicitors, dated 29 March 2011. The letter of demand, inter alia, required the defendant to withdraw the letter of complaint, tender an apology and pay damages to the plaintiff.

[6] Upon the defendant failing to respond to the letter of demand, the plaintiff then commenced this action.

Decision Of The High Court

[7] The learned High Court Judge allowed the plaintiff's claim and ordered the defendant to pay general, aggravated and exemplary damages, totalling RM230,000.00. In delivering his judgment, Abdul Alim Abdullah J stated:

"8. ... mahkamah membuat pendapat defendan dengan hasad yang berlatar belakangkan faktor-faktor di atas itu telah didorong dengan niat jahat dalam membuat aduan kepada Lembaga dan laporan Polis berkenaan.

9. Mahkamah membuat pendapat dengan itu, tidaklah terwujud apa- apa "qualified privilege" sebagai pembelaan di pihak defendan. Jauh sekali defendan tak berkeupayaan untuk berani membela dirinya atas pembelaan "justification". Defendan lesu dalam keterangannya berbanding dengan tuntutan-tuntutan plaintif. Cukuplah diperkatakan di sini bahawa Defendan tak peduli dan tak menghiraukan kebenaran kedudukan plaintif dan aduan kepada Lembaga dan Laporan