JUDGMENT

Augustine Paul FCJ:

[1] This appeal raises for consideration the nature and manner in which questions ought to be framed for the purpose of an appeal to this court pursuant to s. 96(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ("s. 96(a)").

[2] This appeal was previously heard by this court which had, on 13 May 2005, allowed the appeal of the appellants with costs. Upon an application for a review of the judgment by the respondent under r. 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court the orders made were set aside and the appeal was ordered to be reheard. This is the rehearing of the appeal. The first, second and third appellants are the staff reporter, editor and publisher respectively of The New Straits Times. The respondent is an advocate and solicitor practising under the name and style of Messrs V. Muthusamy & Co and was at one time a member of the Penang State Assembly.

[3] The appellants published a report entitled "Lawyer and trader conspired to cheat me, claims driver" in The New Straits Times on 12 September 1991. The report reads as follows:

PENANG, Wed. - A lawyer allegedly conspired to cheat an illiterate man who had engaged him to facilitate the purchase of a property in