Natural justice requires that all parties be allowed to present evidence relevant to their case; denial of such rights constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

Background Of The Case

[1] Ting Sieh Chung @ Ting Sie Chung, ("defendant") lodged caveats over seven pieces of land belonging to Hock Peng Realty Sdn Bhd ("the plaintiff ") on 23 September 2008.

[2] The plaintiff filed an application vide Sibu High Court Originating Summons No 24-15 of 2009 to have the said caveats removed.

[3] On 13 July 2009, the Sibu High Court ordered the caveats to be removed and that damages arising from the lodgement of the caveats to be assessed before the Deputy Registrar ("DR").

[4] The plaintiff only claimed for the damages in respect of two pieces out of the said seven pieces of land ie Lot 3585 Block 7 and Lot 976 Block 10, Sibu Town District.

[5] During the hearing of the assessment of damages before the DR, the plaintiff called three witnesses in order to prove his damages whereas the defendant called five witnesses.

[6] The DR, however, rejected one of the defendants witnesses, one Mr Tam Kok Meng from West Malaysia, citing non-compliance with the Immigration Act 1959/63 namely, for not having a work permit having been issued to him prior. It was the contention of the plaintiff that Tam Kok Meng required to be issued with a work permit by the Sarawak Immigration authorities before he could testify in Court for the assessment of damages. His written statement was also not allowed to be admitted by the DR for the purpose of that proceeding although it was already filed in Court and served on the plaintiff before the hearing date. There was no notice given by the plaintiff to the defendant of its intention to object to the calling of Tam Kok Meng as a witness for the defendant. At the end of the proceeding, the DR decided in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay a sum of about RM20 million to the plaintiff as damages occasioned by the wrongful lodging of the caveats by the defendant over the said two pieces of land belonging to the plaintiff with costs of RM500,000.00.

[7] The defendant filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the DR on the assessment of damages. Apart from that, on 3 February 2015, the defendant filed an application to the Sibu High Court vide encl 176, to introduce new evidence to show that working permit is not required before Tam Kok Meng can be allowed to appear as a witness, as well for the written witness statement of Tam Kok Meng to be adduced.

[8] On 28 April 2015, the learned High Court Judge, dismissed the defendants application in encl 176, with costs of RM3,000.00. On the same day, the same learned High Court Judge allowed in part, the defendants appeal in respect of the assessment of damages. These two decisions were appealed by the defendant, ie Civil Appeal No: Q-02(IM)-840-05-2015 ("Appeal 840") for assessment of damages, and Civil Appeal No: Q-02(IM)-841-05-2015 ("Appeal 841") for the dismissal of encl 176). The plaintiff also filed a cross-appeal against the decision of learned High Court Judge in respect of the assessment of damages vide Civil Appeal No: Q-02(A)-917-06-2015 ("Appeal 917").

The Appeal Before Us

[9] We heard all these three appeals on 23 February 2016. After perusing the Records of Appeal and submissions by both parties, we allowed the defendants appeal in Appeal 841 with costs of RM15,000.00 and that the deposit was refunded to the defendant. As a direct consequence of our decision in Appeal 841, the Appeal 840 and the Appeal 917 have since been rendered academic. We had therefore set aside the order of the DR and tha