Third-Party Proceedings allow a defendant to bring another person into an existing Queensland claim where that person may owe a contribution or indemnity, may be liable for substantially similar connected relief, or needs to be bound by a connected issue. The procedure is governed chiefly by rr 191–208 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). A defence generally comes first; without leave, the notice must then be filed within the period in r 194. Service makes the recipient a party, but does not automatically make the plaintiff’s claim a direct claim against that person. The precise basis of liability, the pleadings and trial directions matter.
When are Third-Party Proceedings available?
Under r 192(a)–(c), a defendant can seek contribution or indemnity from a non-party; seek connected relief substantially the same as some relief claimed by the plaintiff; or have a connected question decided as between the plaintiff and defendant and also between either of them and the non-party. The third limb may be useful even when the immediate object is a binding determination rather than a money judgment. The original action must have been started by claim: r 191(1).
The procedure does not itself create an indemnity or a right of contribution. A party must identify a contractual, statutory or other substantive basis. For tortfeasors liable in respect of the same damage, s 6(1)(c) of the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) permits contribution, subject to its terms; s 6(2) requires the amount to be just and equitable having regard to responsibility for the damage. The statutory question is more exacting than saying that someone else was also involved.
| Basis | Typical allegation | Point to establish |
| Contribution | Two tortfeasors caused the same damage | A substantive contribution right and an equitable apportionment |
| Indemnity | A supplier promised to hold the defendant harmless | The contract or other source and its scope |
| Connected relief | A claim for substantially similar relief concerning the transaction | Both limbs of r 192(b) |
| Connected issue | A common construction or factual question affects a non-party | The connection required by r 192(c) |
A building dispute example
Suppose an owner sues a head contractor for water ingress. The contractor says a waterproofing subcontractor performed the defective work and its subcontract contains an indemnity. Third-Party Proceedings could put that contractual claim in the same litigation. The notice should plead the subcontract, the work, the alleged breach or indemnity trigger, and the relief sought. Merely alleging that the subcontractor caused the leak leaves the basis for indemnifying the contractor obscure. Stonegate Legal’s guide to drafting a statement of claim explains the material-fact discipline that applies to the attached pleading.
Third-Party Proceedings against a non-party or a claim between existing parties?
A person outside the case is brought in by a third-party notice under rr 192–193. Where the proposed target is already a party, r 206(1)–(3) permits a party to claim relief of the r 192 kind by filing and serving a notice, except where the claim could be made by counterclaim. A recipient who is already a plaintiff or has filed a notice of intention to defend need not file another notice solely because of r 206.
There is a narrower route for a defendant seeking only contribution under s 6 from another defendant: r 208 permits a notice claiming contribution without further pleading. It is not a device for joining a stranger. If the defendant alleges additional facts against the other defendant, those facts need to be pleaded. In Robinson v Fig Tree Pocket Equestrian Club Inc [2005] QCA 271 the Court of Appeal addressed the limits of a bare contribution notice where a party sought to advance allegations beyond the plaintiff’s pleaded case. The useful lesson is to choose the process by reference to the actual issues to be tried, rather than by the relief label alone. A distinct cross-claim may instead require a counterclaim.
Starting Third-Party Proceedings: defence, notice and time
A third-party proceeding starts when its notice is issued: r 191(2). The notice must be in the approved form, briefly state the claim or relief, and attach a statement of claim unless the court orders otherwise: r 193(1)–(2). The usual forms are Form 14 for the notice and Form 16 for its statement of claim. Plead the third-party cause of action in its own right, including alternative allegations where needed. Do not assume the plaintiff’s pleading supplies missing facts about the defendant’s separate contract with the third party.
Without leave, the defendant must have filed a defence before filing the notice. The notice must be filed within 28 days after the end of whichever ends later: the time limited for that defendant’s defence, or a defence period extended by the plaintiff’s agreement: r 194(1)(a)–(b). This is not a fresh 28 days from the date the defence happens to be filed. A late notice, or a proposed notice before a defence, requires leave. An application for leave must be served on the plaintiff; the court may require service on another defending party and may give filing and service directions: r 194(2)–(4).
A supporting affidavit should explain the reason for delay, the proposed claim and how joining it now affects the timetable. Attach the draft notice and pleading so the court and plaintiff can assess the real dispute. Late joinder may cause expense, disrupt disclosure or push a trial date. The court has a discretion; the existence of an arguable claim does not settle whether the present proceeding is the right vehicle.
Case example: a notice issued without leave
In Rathie v ING Life Ltd [2003] QSC 429, the defendant issued third-party proceedings after the r 194 period without first obtaining leave. The plaintiff later abandoned the allegation that had prompted them. When the third-party proceeding was discontinued, the court treated the absence of leave and the way the defendant had framed its own claim as relevant to costs. The defendant was ordered to pay the third party’s standard costs. The case illustrates why an apparently responsive third-party claim must still be tested for timing, proper pleading and cost exposure; it does not establish that every discontinued notice produces the same order.
Service and the third party’s response
The defendant must serve the issued notice on the third party as soon as practicable, in the same way as originating process. Service must include any leave order, the original claim and all pleadings already filed: r 195(1)–(2). As soon as practicable afterwards, a copy of the notice must go to the plaintiff and all parties who have filed a notice of intention to defend: r 195(3). Later pleadings must be served on all other parties with an address for service: r 199.
Service makes the third party a party with the rights it would have in defending an ordinary claim by the defendant: r 196. Chapter 5 applies, with necessary changes, to its notice of intention to defend: r 197. It may file and serve its defence within 28 days after service of the third-party statement of claim. That defence may deny the plaintiff’s allegations against the defendant or raise a matter showing the plaintiff’s claim is not maintainable: r 198(1)–(2). The defendant should anticipate this wider contest when settling its own defence; Stonegate Legal’s defence and reply guide addresses the response to the primary claim.
Disclosure, default and counterclaims in Third-Party Proceedings
Disclosure relationships are conditional. Between the defendant and third party, the duty arises only if the third party files a defence: r 202(1). Between plaintiff and third party it arises only if the third party contests the plaintiff’s allegations against the defendant or alleges another matter making the plaintiff’s claim untenable: r 202(2). The court can order disclosure between the third party and another party: r 202(3). This is a reason to map the actual issues before circulating broad requests. Stonegate Legal’s disclosure of evidence guide covers the ordinary duty and its limits.
A third party with a claim against the defendant who brought it in may counterclaim. It can include the plaintiff or another person if that person could be joined in a separate proceeding: r 200(1)–(4). Once a third party files a notice of intention to defend, r 207(1)–(2) also allows the procedure to continue, with necessary changes, to fourth and later parties. Each extra layer should justify its likely effect on time and cost.
Default requires care. The particular consequences in r 201(1)–(2) arise where the plaintiff has obtained default judgment against the defendant who joined the third party and the third party has filed neither a notice of intention to defend nor a defence. In that setting the third party is taken to admit the third-party claim and is bound by the primary default judgment to the stated extent. A contribution or indemnity judgment may ordinarily be obtained after satisfaction of the primary default judgment, or earlier with leave. Other relief requires leave. The court may set aside or vary judgment against the third party: r 201(3)–(4). Do not treat silence by a third party as an automatic shortcut to recovery in every procedural posture. Stonegate Legal’s guide to default judgment explains the primary claim procedure.
Trial directions, binding findings and enforcement
The default position is concurrent trial of the plaintiff–defendant and defendant–third party issues, unless the court orders otherwise. The third party’s participation is as the court directs: r 203(1)–(2). The court can direct the extent to which it is bound by the judgment between plaintiff and defendant: r 204. These directions need attention before trial, particularly where the third party wants to contest causation, quantum or a witness whose evidence also drives the primary claim.
Case example: separate trial despite the concurrent-trial starting point
In The Portland Downs Pastoral Company Pty Ltd v Great Northern Developments Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 467, the Supreme Court considered the efficiency and consistency usually gained by trying connected issues together, yet ordered the third-party issues to be tried separately and after the principal dispute. Rule 203 states a starting point, not an inflexible command. The order depends on the actual issues and the practical management of that case.
The court may enter judgment either for the defendant against the third party or the reverse: r 205(1). Where the plaintiff wins against the defendant and the defendant wins against the third party, enforcement of the latter judgment waits until the judgment against the defendant is satisfied, unless the court orders otherwise: r 205(2). A favourable indemnity judgment is therefore not necessarily immediate cash flow for the defendant.
A settlement example
Assume an engineer is sued for defective design and claims a contractual indemnity from a consultant. If the engineer proposes to settle the owner’s claim, it should address the settlement’s reasonableness, the indemnity wording, the consultant’s participation and the effect of any discontinuance before signing. A settlement between owner and engineer does not, by itself, prove every element of the separate indemnity claim. Draft the settlement and proposed orders with the third-party claim expressly in view.
A practical sequence for Third-Party Proceedings
| Stage | Check |
| At first instructions | Identify the proposed party, substantive right and overlap with the plaintiff’s case. |
| Defence and deadline | File the defence; calculate r 194 from the prescribed or agreed defence period. |
| Notice and pleading | State the relief, plead material facts and obtain leave if required. |
| Service and response | Serve the full r 195 bundle; diary the third party’s response and later pleading service. |
| Case management | Set disclosure relationships, trial participation, binding findings and any separate-trial request. |
| Judgment or settlement | Address costs, satisfaction and enforcement rather than assuming the primary result resolves the cross-claim. |
Third-Party Proceedings work best when the proposed party’s presence will resolve a real connected dispute without obscuring the plaintiff’s claim. The early questions are substantive: what liability can be proved against that person, which facts are genuinely common, and what order will the court be asked to make? The filing mechanics follow from those answers.
