JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

Introduction

Thirteen appeals came before us when we commenced hearing on Tuesday, 16 June 1998. Of these, three have been withdrawn. Ten now remain upon which we are required to pronounce our decision and give our reasons.

All ten appeals have two things in common. First, they arise out of the same civil suit; second, almost all of them involve a review of discretion exercised by the judge in the court below. Some of these appeals have common subject matter and were, therefore, heard together. The particulars of the appeals are as follows: 1. Civil Appeal Nos. W-03-27-98, W-02-301-98 and W-03-313-98, all of which are directed against the learned judge's order refusing applications requiring the respondents before us to furnish security for costs.

2. Civil Appeal No. W-02-459-97 which is an appeal against the order of the learned judge refusing to strike out the quantification of damages appearing at the foot of the writ and statement of claim.

3. Civil Appeals Nos. W-03-4-98 and W-03-5-98 which are directed against the learned judge's refusal to order the plaintiffs to furnish particulars of their pleadings.

4. Civil Appeals Nos: W-03-40-97 and W-03-6-98 which are directed against the learned judge's orders declining to try preliminary issues, as to liability of a partner and of the firm respectively, made under the relevant provisions of the Rules of the High Court.

5. Civil Appeal No. W-03-303-98 in which the complaint is that amendments sought by the first defendant, Mr. Tommy Thomas, a partner of the second defendant firm, to his defence in the court below were wrongly refused by the judge.

6. Civil Appeal No. W-02-302-98 which is an appeal directed against the order of the learned judge granting the plaintiffs (respondents before us) leave to interrogate the first defendant in the action.

Background

The brief background to all the foregoing appeals may be shortly stated. We may, add that for the purposes of this judgment, we will be referring to the parties according to the title assigned to them in the court below. The first plaintiff is a public listed company and the second plaintiff is its wholly owned subsidiary.

There is a magazine called "International Commercial Litigation". In the November 1995 issue of that magazine, there appeared an article about the Malaysian judiciary. It was written by one David Samuels. It contains references to several cases litigated before our courts. One of these cases involved the plaintiffs. On publication of the article, the plaintiffs took umbrage with its contents. They formed the view that it libelled them. The article in question has references also to interviews and statements by both named and unnamed persons. The first defendant is mentioned in the article and words alleged to be spoken by him appear in quotations. On 25 September 1996 the plaintiffs issued writ, both against the first defendant and the firm of solicitors of which he is a partner (the second defendant in the action). In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs complained that the first defendant had defamed them and that the second defendant firm is vicariously liable for the alleged tort committed by the first defendant. Both in the indorsement in the writ and in the statement of claim, the plaintiffs quantified the damages. Each of them claimed a sum of RM30 million for slander and libel, that is to say, a total claim of RM60 million against the first and second defendants.

After the defendants had delivered their defences and the plaintiffs their reply, a summons for directions was filed by the plaintiffs. However, the learned judge to whom the action was assigned declined to make orders or give directions on that summons. Instead he subjected the action to case management, a process by which he supervised the conduct of all proceedings therein.

At one of the pre-trial conferences held in January 1998, the learned judge indicated that the trial of the action will commenc