Crop Protection Association Ltd (CPA), R (on the application of) v Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food & Anor

Intervention in an appeal is discretionary and should assist the court’s decision-making. An intervention may be refused where it would duplicate submissions already made or add no distinct value. Where applicants have overlapping interests, the court may prefer a representative body whose submissions cover the relevant standpoints. Permission may be granted on terms limiting oral submissions, requiring a skeleton argument and restricting any claim for costs.

The judgment determined applications by the National Farmers Union (NFU) and ME2 Crop Protection Limited to intervene in an appeal and cross-appeal arising from a ruling of Richards J in the Administrative Court. The NFU represented farming members affected by the parallel importation of pesticides. ME2 was itself a parallel importer and claimed a different interest, but proposed submissions on the same issues: the meaning of “same formulation” and the extent of national discretion concerning information verifying product identicality.

The central issue was whether both applicants would make a useful and distinct contribution to the court’s decision-making process.

Lord Justice Keene, delivering the judgment of the court, allowed the NFU’s application and refused ME2’s application.

1. Value of intervention. The court’s discretion to permit intervention should be exercised by reference to whether the proposed intervention will assist the court. Duplicate representations are of no assistance, even where the proposed intervenors have somewhat different interests.
2. Overlapping applicants. The NFU and ME2 intended to support MAFF’s appeal and resist CPA’s cross-appeal. Their draft submissions substantially overlapped. Although ME2 was a parallel importer and the NFU primarily represented farming consumers, ME2 could not identify any additional argument which would not already be advanced by the NFU.
3. Choice of intervenor. The NFU’s earlier application and its representative character were material. Its submissions would substantially cover anything ME2 sought to say and would ensure that the relevant standpoints were represented. ME2 was only one of several companies which might seek to intervene, so its distinct commercial interest did not justify a second intervention.
4. Terms and order. The NFU was permitted to intervene subject to a 45-minute limit on oral submissions, service of a comprehensive skeleton argument two weeks before the hearing and an undertaking not to seek costs if successful. Each applicant was ordered to bear its own application costs. The parties’ costs of the applications were made costs in the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Applications to intervene in the appeal and cross-appeal determined. The NFU was permitted to intervene on specified terms, and ME2’s application was refused.
• Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court): The appeal and cross-appeal arose from a ruling of Richards J. No citation or substantive outcome of that ruling is stated in the judgment.