header-logo header-logo

07 October 2010
Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Third party claims on AR

There is a dispute between the parties to an ancillary relief application as to whether...

There is a dispute between the parties to an ancillary relief application as to whether a third party has a beneficial interest in property. If the court is to bind the third party by its determination of this dispute, is it sufficient for the third party to be served and given permission to be joined as an intervenor if they wish or must they be joined as a party in any event?

There is a distinction between an intervention (which is at the behest of the third party) and joinder as a party (which may be against the will of the third party).

Where the property or other rights of a third party may be directly affected by an order on an ancillary relief application, or it is necessary for that party to be before the court to give effect to the order, the proper course will usually be to join the third party.

Where, however, a third party

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll