Abdul Malik Ishak J:

Introduction

The second defendant by the name of Kumana Pupathi a/l Atimulam @ Athi Kumanan had passed away. His death gave rise to the question of whether the various causes of action in the plaintiff's amended statement of claim would abate.

In the indorsement of claim to the amended writ of summons, the plaintiff claimed for the following causes of action (and this was also reflected at para. 15 of the amended statement of claim):

(a) damages for the tort of conspiracy;

(b) damages for the tort of malicious falsehood; and

(c) damages for the tort of libel.

Tort Of Conspiracy

Lord Devlin in Rookes v. Barnard [1964] AC 1129, 1204 aptly said:

There are, as is well known, two sorts of conspiracies, the Quinn v. Leathem [1901] AC 495 type which employs only lawful means but aims at an unlawful end, and the type which employs unlawful means.

This very passage has received the approval of the House of Lords in the case of Lonrho plc v. Fayed and Others [1991] 3 All ER 303.

In Mulcahy v. R [1868] LR 3 HL 306 at 317, conspiracy is said to be "the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means."

I pause here fo