JUDGMENT
A. Issues to be decided in this appeal (This Appeal)
[1] We shall refer to the parties as they were in the High Court.
[2] The following questions arose in this case:
(1) whether the plaintiff, an orthopaedic surgeon (Plaintiff), could file this suit (This Suit) against the 2nd defendant "Pantai Hospital Manjung" (2nd Defendant), when the 2nd Defendant is not a legal entity which is recognised in law;
(2) whether the "Consultant's Agreement" dated 21 October 2013 (Agreement) between the 1st defendant company (1st Defendant) and the Plaintiff was a "fixed term contract for services" wherein the Plaintiff was an independent contractor for the 1st Defendant and was not its employee without-
(a) a constitutional right of livelihood under art 5(1) of the Federal Constitution (FC); and
(b) a right of hearing before the 1st Defendant terminated the Agreement with effect from 29 July 2016 (more than 8 months before the expiry of the Agreement on 30 March 2017) [1st Defendant's Termination (Agreement)];
(3) whether the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim in This Suit (ASOC) had pleaded a material fact that the 1st Defendant had breached a contractual duty under the Agreement to act in good faith towards the Plaintiff [Contractual Duty (Good Faith)] as required by O 18 r 7(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC);
(4) if the ASOC did not plead the 1st Defendant's breach of the Contractual Duty (Good Faith) [1st Defendant's Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith)], had the Plaintiff adduced evidence of the 1st Defendant's Breach (Contractual Duty of Good Faith) at the trial of This Suit (Trial) and the admissibility of such evidence had not been objected to by the 1st and 2nd Defendants (collectively referred to in this judgment as the "Defendants")?;