header-logo header-logo

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

The intervener is here to stay

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll