(1) This case has a history. But we are spared from dealing with all of it. So far as this appeal is concerned, the facts fall within a narrow compass.

(2) The plaintiff (the respondent before us) brought an action by writ in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur. In it, he claimed a number of declarations. They were all directed at a meeting of the third defendant which the defendants (the appellants before us) intended to convene for the purpose of discussing certain allegations relating to the judiciary which they considered matters of public interest. The plaintiff stopped that meeting by means of an interlocutory injunction. Later, a trial took place before the learned judge in the High Court. It was on issues framed by the plaintiff that encompassed the justiciability of the whole of the relief he had claimed at the foot of the writ. The judge amended the issues and ordered a trial. Oral evidence was led on both sides with the former President of the first defendant, namely the second defendant, being subjected to cross-examination on his affidavit. After hearing evidence, and at the close of the proceedings, the learned jud