The court clarified that absolute privilege applies to statements made in court proceedings and affirmed the dismissal of defamation claims while recognizing a tort of abuse of process.

[1] There were two appeals fixed for hearing before us on 18 April 2017 arising from the same decision of the High Court related to defamation and tort of abuse of process of Court.

[2] Appeal No Q-02(W)-1129-06/2016 (1st appeal) is the appeal of the plaintiff in the High Court suit No 22-53-2009 and appeal No Q-02(W)-343-02/2017 (2nd appeal) is the appeal by the defendant.

[3] The 1st appeal is related to the complaint of the plaintiff that the learned judge had dismissed the cause of action in defamation and only provided a sum of RM50,000.00 for the tort of abuse of process of Court.

[4] The 2nd appeal is related to the complaint that the Court should not have allowed the claim for tort of abuse of process.

Brief Facts

[5] The plaintiff's action has a chequered history. The learned trial judge has documented the history, the facts and law in articulate manner. [See Hock Peng Realty Sdn Bhd v. Ting Sie Chung @ Ting Sieh Chung, 2016 MarsdenLR 1149 ]. For the purpose of both the appeals, we do not wish to repeat what was said in the judgment, save to say that this judgment must be read together with our judgment to appreciate our grounds in the proper perspective.

[6] We will summarise the facts in our own words as follows:

(a) The plaintiff, a property development company, has advanced some money to the defendant in anticipation of developing the land belonging to the defendant.

(b) The deal did not go through and the defendant did not pay the sum advanced and the plaintiff took the opportunity to caveat the defendant's land.

(c) The caveat was subsequently removed and damages were asked to be assessed before the Court.

(d) The plaintiff and defendant had by a consent order agreed that they will proceed with the assessment of damages but the payment of the assessment was to be stayed pending appeal process.

(e) The deputy registrar had assessed the damages and the defendant in breach of the agreed terms issued a writ of seizure and sale and subsequently obtained a prohibitory order against the plaintiff's land and that too ex-parte, without having served any papers on the plaintiff, notwithstanding the appeal process has not been exhausted.

(f) The plaintiff says that in consequence of the conduct of the defendant, there is cause of action for defamation for false and malicious statements in the prohibitory order. The said prohibitory order lodged against the plaintiff reads as follows:

WHEREAS you the said HOCK PENG REALTY SENDIRIAN BERHAD, the above-named Defendant/Judgment Debtor has failed to satisfy an Order given on 30th day of January 2007 and dated the 29th day of February 2007 in favour of TING SIEH CHUNG, the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, for the sum of RM1,842.073.91 (as at 15th May 2007) together with the interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the 30 January 2007 until the full settlement and costs which shall be paid by the Defendant/Judgment Debtor to the Advocates for the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor.

IT Is ORDERED that you the said HOCK PENG REALTY SENDIRIAN BERHAD be and you are hereby, for a period commencing from of the date of registration of this Order under the provisions expiry of six(6) months from the date of this Order, prohibited and restrained from transferring, charging or leasing the properties specified in the SCHEDULE hereunder or creating any lien or equitable charge thereof by deposit of any instrument of title.

Schedule

(1) All that the said HOCK PENG REALTY SENDIRIAN B