Gio Personal Investment Services Limited v Liverpool & London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Limited & Ors

Under O.59,r.8, the Court of Appeal has a wide jurisdiction to direct service of a notice of appeal on a person who was not a party below. That power may be used to permit participation where the person’s interests may not otherwise be adequately represented, necessary arguments may be missed, or the person may seek an order in its own favour. The court may direct service of appeal papers and require a skeleton argument. Costs and procedural directions remain under the court’s control.

FIA, a non-party that had attended the trial, appealed from Timothy Walker J’s refusal to order disclosure of skeleton arguments and related documents. OMM, another non-party, had sought below to oppose disclosure or obtain a corresponding order, but its standing was not determined because the disclosure application had succeeded on another party’s argument. OMM applied to be present at the appeal, wishing to ensure that its interests in separate litigation were protected and to seek an order in its favour if the appeal succeeded. FIA resisted the application. The central issue was whether OMM should receive notice and be permitted to participate in the appeal.

1. Application allowed. Lord Justice Waller gave the judgment, with Lord Justices Otton and Swinton Thomas agreeing.
2. O.59,r.8 confers a wide jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal to direct that notice of an appeal be served on a person who was not a party to the proceedings below. The jurisdiction extends beyond parties formally involved in the lower-court litigation.
3. OMM should be allowed to be present at the appeal. It had attended the proceedings below, had a direct interest in the disclosure issue because of separate litigation, could not be certain that an existing party would advance all the necessary arguments, and wished to obtain relief in its own favour if the appeal succeeded. The court relied on Hasselblad (GB) Limited v Kenneth Orbinson, [1984] 3 CMLR 540, as demonstrating the breadth of the jurisdiction.
4. The notice of appeal, skeleton arguments and appeal bundle were to be served on OMM. OMM was directed to serve a skeleton argument identifying the points it wished to take. Costs were reserved to the hearing, and the skeleton was to be served by 4 p.m. on 30 September 1998.
5. Lord Justice Waller also recorded strong criticism of the excessive and duplicative correspondence and documentation placed before the court, describing it as a serious failure to observe solicitors’ duty to the court. That observation was not necessary to the procedural order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On OMM’s application in the pending appeal, the court directed service of the notice of appeal and appeal materials on OMM and permitted it to participate.
• High Court (Commercial Court): Timothy Walker J had refused the requested disclosure of skeleton arguments and related documents. OMM’s standing was not determined.