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 Kulim, Kedah, the High Court was told today.

Driver G. Paramasevam claimed that his lawyer V. Muthusamy had breached their contract by allowing the land, worth $70,0000, to be transferred to a businessman nine years ago without his knowledge or permission.

He said that when he demanded an explanation from Mr Muthusamy, the lawyer claimed he did not know anything and asked him to leave his office.

He has named in his suit, businessman Varlivell alias V. Vadiveloo as the first defendant and Mr Muthusamy as the second defendant.

He claimed he was cheated of the property as a result of the conspiracy between the two defendants and is seeking an order for the return of his property, damages and costs.

At the start of today's proceedings, Mr Paramasevam's counsel Mr Karpal Singh objected to Mr Muthusamy's dual roles as both counsel and defendant in the case. Mr Muthusamy who is represented by Mr Yeap Ghim Guan, is representing Mr Vadiveloo.

However, Mr Muthusamy assured Mr Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah that there would be no complications. He also complained to the court that "several reporters have got hold of the case documents and that is why they have all come here today".

In his testimony, Mr Paramasevam said he and Mr Vadiveloo were former business partners in Singapore before his return to Penang in 1982.

They had a falling out after he asked Mr Vadiveloo, who is married to his sister's daughter, for the return of a $100,000 loan. However, the latter repaid part of the loan in two instalments of $35,000 each after Mr Paramasevam decided to buy the land.

On Feb 2, 1982, Mr Muthusamy informed me at his office that the vendor had charged the property to Malayan Banking. He asked me to pay a $35,000 deposit and promised to settle the problem with the bank.

"Three weeks later, I visited his office where I was asked to sign an agreement. He also reminded me to pay the balance within six months," he said.

Mr Paramasevam did this on Aug 18 when Mr Vadiveloo repaid him another $35,000 which he immediately handed over to Mr Muthusamy's office.

When he failed to receive the title to the property after three months, he returned to the legal firm but was only asked to sign three letters and told to wait a while more.

A few days later, I got into financial difficulties and decided to sell the land. I brought a prospective buyer to Mr Muthusamy's office but was told by the clerk that the land did not belong to me.

After confirming this with a literate friend, Mr Paramasevam confronted Mr Muthusamy but was instead scolded and told to get out of the office.

I phoned Vadiveloo and asked him why he had cheated me. He said he would not leave me alone until I become a beggar.

The judge set Nov 30 as the next date of hearing."

The respondent claimed that the report