The court established that third party directions can be granted if a prima facie case exists, as both actions are interrelated.

RK Nathan J:

Preamble

This case has a long and chequered history. The suit number as stated above is misleading. It is not correct to assume that this suit was filed in 1996. In fact this suit was initially filed in the commercial division under case No. D3- 22-518-93. It was filed on 21 May 1993. On 23 November 1996 it was transferred to the civil division under the present suit number.

The Main Action

The plaintiffs (the Hong Leong Group) had in May 1993 brought a claim against the 1st defendant (the client) and the 2nd defendant (the solicitors' firm). The claim is for alleged defamation arising out of two letters described as letter A and letter B written by the solicitors' firm on behalf of the client. In his defence to the claim by the Hong Leong Group, the client had set out the relevant facts and circumstances of his grievance and contends that there was a breach by the Hong Leong Group of the voluntary general offer. However, the client had sought in his defence to state that he had obtained the professional advice and assistance of the solicitors' firm and that the choice of language in letter A and letter B is entirely that of the solicitors' firm, and in para. 18 of the said defence, he had stated that he would seek a contribution and/or indemnity from the solicitors' firm. It is clear that at all material times, the solicitors' firm was acting for the client and had raised the defence of, inter alia, qualified privilege with no malice as against the Hong Leong Group.

On 26 January 1999 the trial commenced against the client and the solicitors' firm. The plaintiffs produced their first witness whom the solicitors' firm (the present third party) cross-examined at length. At the next date fixed for continued hearing, that is on 24 March 1999, the plaintiffs and the solicitors' firm informed the court that a settlement had been reached between them. Upon terms not recorded in court nor notified to the court, the matter between the plaintiffs and the solicitors' firm was resolved in that the action against the solicitors' firm was withdrawn with the action against the client to continue thereafter without the presence of the solicitors' firm. The client's solicitors then requested for an adjournment to take further instructions. On the next date fixed for continued hearing, that is on 9 April 1999, the client's solicitors informed the court that the client intended to apply to issue out a third party notice against the solicitors' firm. I then adjourned proceedings to enable the client to do so. The client then applied for leave to issue out the third party notice and obtained the said order on 10 May 1999. Following service of the said third party notice, the client has now issued the summons for third party directions seeking inter alia the delivery of pleadings as between himself and the solicitors' firm to be delivered with a view to the solicitors' firm's liability being determined in the continued action between the plaintiffs and the client.

The Application

The third party now opposes this application for third party directions on various grounds.

Findings Of The Court

Upon an application for third party directions, the court acts within the confines of O. 16 r. 4(3) and r. 4(4) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (the RHC) which read as follows:

(3) On an application for directions under this rule the court may:

(a) if the liability of the third party to the defendant who issued the third party notice is established on the hearing, order such judgment as the nature of the case may require to be entered against the third party in favour of the defendant; or

(b) order any claim, question or issue stated in the third party notice to be tried in such manner as the court may direct; or

(c) dismiss the application and terminate the proceedings on the third party notice;

and may do so