header-logo header-logo

The intervener is here to stay

06 October 2017 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7764 / Categories: Features , In Court
printer mail-detail
nlj_7764_samuels

The phenomenon of interested parties intervening in litigation that does not directly concern them is now a frequent occurrence, says Alec Samuels

  • Interveners can appear in almost any types of cases, pay their own way, and make a useful contribution.

A phenomenon that has crept into civil litigation almost imperceptibly in recent years, especially this century, and especially since the inception of the Supreme Court, has been intervention by an intervener. Traditionally, judges have not liked intervention, for fear of irrelevant or academic or hypothetical material being introduced, of lengthening the proceedings and increasing the costs, and of imposing an unfair disadvantage on one of the parties. This fear has passed. The permission of the court is required to intervene. In the Supreme Court permission is usually given on the papers by three Justices. Application for permission to intervene is made after permission to appeal has been given to a party.

Intervention may occur in almost any type of case. A charity will intervene in a child case and in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll