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

Sidley—James Inness

Sidley—James Inness

Partner joins capital markets team in London office

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Firm announces appointment of partner as UK general counsel

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Firm appoints first chief marketing officer to drive growth strategy

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll