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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll