[2025] EWCA Civ 1134

The joinder of parties in civil proceedings is governed by CPR Part 19. Rule 19.2 provides:

“(2)

The court may order a person to be added as a new party if—

(a)

it is desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve all the matters in dispute in the proceedings; or

(b)

there is an issue involving the new party and an existing party which is connected to the matters in dispute in the proceedings, and it is desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve that issue.”

This rule was most recently considered by this court in Betta Oceanway Company & SC Tomini Trading SRL v Georgios Vatistas [2025] EWCA Civ 595 (“Betta Oceanway”); the judgment of Males LJ in that case draws heavily from The Welsh Ministers v Haydn Price and The Registrar of Companies [2017] EWCA Civ 1768, [2018] 1 WLR 738 (CA) (“Pablo Star”). In Pablo Star, Sir Terence Etherton MR had said (at [51]) that:

“[t]he provisions of CPR 19.2(2) ought… to be given a wide interpretation. The words "in dispute" ought to be read as "in issue" That is consistent with authority that the court's powers to add a party under CPR 19.2 can exist after judgment even though, on a literal approach, there is no longer a matter in dispute: Dunwoody Sports Marketing v Prescott [2007] EWCA Civ 461 at [23]; [2007] 1 WLR 2343.” 

He added at [60]:

“In considering whether or not it is desirable to add a new party pursuant to CPR 19.2(2) two lodestars are the policy objective of enabling parties to be heard if their rights may be affected by a decision in the case and the Overriding Objective in CPR Part 1.”

The decision of this court in Re Blenheim Leisure (Restaurants) Ltd [2000] BCC 554 (“Blenheim”) had been cited with approval in Pablo Star; in Blenheim, Tuckey LJ (at 574G) had observed that rule 19.2(2) was:

“…drawn in wide general terms to ensure that parties whose rights may be affected by a particularrb decision have a right to be heard.”

At [37] of Betta Oceanway, Males LJ drew the threads together in this way:

“... a third party will not be joined unless it is ‘desirable’ that he should be. The need for this condition to be satisfied operates as a control mechanism to ensure that a third party is not permitted to gatecrash proceedings in which he has no legitimate business, where his presence would unduly complicate or add to the cost of the proceedings or where his presence would add nothing because the relevant issues are being contested by the existing parties.”

In relation to the court’s residual discretionary approach, Males LJ added this at [41]:

“It is hard to envisage circumstances in which the court would conclude that it was desirable to add the new party in order to resolve all the matters in dispute, but would nevertheless decline to do so.”

Rule 19.4 provides that the permission of the court is required to add a party once the claim form has been served, as it had in this case. That application may be made (per rule 19.4(2)(a)(ii)) by a person who “wishes to become a party”, and if so must be supported by evidence (rule 19.4(2)(b)(i) ibid).

In this case:

It will be apparent that the rules facilitate the exercise of wide judicial discretion if the applicant can show that it can pass through one of the “gateways” in rule 19.2(2). We are of course conscious of the restricted role of the appellate court in interfering with a decision at first instance of this kind (see [44] in Betta Oceanway).