Wandsworth v Keeffe

Where an existing party to an appeal can raise an issue affecting another person, the court should generally refuse to join that person as an interested party. The principle is directed to preventing unnecessary joinder and possible abuse of public funding; it does not determine how the Legal Services Commission must exercise its statutory powers. Funding may properly be considered for a prompt application to join a child where there are good or arguable grounds, but funding should not assume that joinder has already occurred.

The London Borough of Wandsworth appealed against a decision concerning the joinder of a child as an interested party. The substantive appeal was a second appeal from the Special Needs Tribunal. The court had previously refused the child’s joinder and left the costs position open in circumstances where public funding had been granted for the child’s participation before any application for joinder had been made.

After the appeal was dismissed, the child sought permission to appeal against the refusal of joinder and applied for costs. The central issues were whether the court had applied an impermissibly rigid rule and whether its approach interfered with the Legal Services Commission’s funding powers.

1. Appeal and costs. The appeal by the London Borough of Wandsworth was dismissed. There was no order as to the costs of the appeal.
2. Joinder principle. The court rejected the submission that its earlier statement of principle created an unlawful hard-and-fast rule. The principle, derived from ex parte South Glamorgan County Council and the City of Westminster case, was that an interested party should not be joined to an appeal where an existing party could raise the relevant issue without joining the other person affected. No arguable ground of challenge to that principle existed.
3. Legal Services Commission. The judgment did not enlarge or change the Commission’s powers. The Commission was entitled to consider the particular facts, including that public funding had been granted for the child’s participation before the court had been asked to order joinder.
4. Future funding applications. Where there were good or arguable grounds for joining a child, funding could be available for a prompt and timely application to the court after consideration by the Commission. That approach would allow the parties to know the position before the appeal was heard and avoid unnecessary expenditure of public funds.
5. Permission to appeal against the refusal of joinder and the related costs applications was refused.

• Special Needs Tribunal: The underlying proceedings originated in an appeal to the tribunal.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The matter reached the High Court as a second appeal. The appeal by Wandsworth was dismissed, and the subsequent applications for permission to appeal and costs were refused.