A party's failure to represent themselves and keep informed of proceedings does not justify setting aside a judgment based on alleged breaches of natural justice.

[1] The appellant (plaintiff) had filed a defamation suit against the respondent (defendant) on 2 January 2004 at the Shah Alam High Court for libel contained in an e-mail dated 27 September 2003. On 17 February 2004 the defendant's solicitors M/s Rajadevan & Associates filed the defendant's Statement of Defence.

[2] On 7 December 2005, M/s Rajadevan & Associates discharged themselves from representing the defendant. There was an interlocutory application by the plaintiff to strike out the defence. It was fixed for hearing before the High Court Judge (HCJ) (Alizatul Khair J) on 7 April 2006.

[3] On 7 April 2006, the defendant was present in Court. Counsel for defendant was not present. Counsel for plaintiff who was present informed the HCJ that the plaintiff 's solicitors have not been served with the fair copy of the order of discharge by the defendant's solicitors. O 64 r 5(1) Rules of the High Court 1980 (RHC) provides that unless and until the solicitor serves on every party in the cause or matter a copy of the order, he shall be considered the solicitor of the party till the final conclusion of the cause or matter. However, the defendant, thereupon, informed the HCJ that he will not be engaging another lawyer. He stated that he would argue the case himself. Nevertheless, the Court postponed the hearing of the plaintiff 's interlocutory application to strike out the defence to 2 October 2006. It is to be noted that no notice of change to act in person was filed in Court by the defendant in Form 139, as provided under O 64 r 3 RHC.

[4] On 2 October 2006, neither the plaintiff nor his counsel was present. The defendant was present personally. He had no counsel. The Court dismissed with costs the plaintiff 's application to strike out the defence.

[5] On 3 May 2007, the case was fixed for case management before the same HCJ who had dismissed the plaintiff 's application to strike off the defence on 2 October 2006. The parties were not present and the HCJ fixed 14 September 2007 for case management.

[6] On 14 September 2007 (case management) counsel for plaintiff was present. The defendant was not present but counsel (En Sanjev), on behalf of the solicitors still on record for the defendant, appeared and informed the Court that an order for discharge had been obtained on 7 December 2007. However, there was no evidence that the order of discharge had been served on the defendant personally. Until the order of discharge has been served on the defendant the solicitors are still on record and answerable to the Court for the conduct of the defendant's case until its final disposal. This includes keeping the defendant informed of the progress of the case and, in the particular circumstances of this case, the case management dates. On 14 September 2007 the HCJ, thereupon, ordered:

"1) Counsel to inform defendant.

2) En Sanjev to reserve order on defendant and plaintiff 's solicitors and file affidavit of service. Ke 22 November 2007 (Sebutan)"

[7] On 22 November 2007 counsel for the plaintiff was present but neither counsel nor the defendant was present. Counsel for the plaintiff informed the Court that he had served by AR Register a letter informing the defendant of the date but the letter was returned. The HCJ thereupon made the following Order:

"(1) Plaintiff to file ikatan Pliding, Ikatan Dokumen, Isu dan Fakta sebelum hujung February 2008.

(2) Ke 24 April 2008 (Case Management) (Final)"

[8] On 24 April 2008 counsel for plaintiff was present and informed the Court that he had sent all the relevant documents to the defendant on 5 December 2007 but had no response. He informed the Court that he had only one witness. The Court fixed 30 March 2009 as t