Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents

Under CPR 19.2(2)(a), a person may be joined where doing so is desirable to enable the court to resolve all matters in dispute. The rule does not require an issue between the proposed party and an existing party. The court retains a broad discretion, exercised in light of all relevant circumstances.

Joinder is not justified merely because the proposed party has a substantial interest in the legal issue or in related proceedings. The existing parties must be unable to resolve the dispute adequately and properly, or the proposed party must materially improve the court’s ability to determine it. Additional burden, including burden on a related reference, is relevant. Joinder may also be undesirable if it would introduce a separate dispute not presently before the court.

Daiichi Sankyo appealed in proceedings concerning the interpretation of a regulation governing supplementary protection certificates. Novartis AG applied under CPR 19.2(2)(a) to be joined as a party because the legal issue could affect its business and related proceedings brought against it by Teva.

Novartis argued that it could provide a distinct perspective on the questions referred to the Court of Justice. The Comptroller opposed joinder. The central issue was whether adding Novartis was desirable so that the matters in dispute could be resolved.

1. Application dismissed. Novartis was not joined as a party to Daiichi’s appeal.
2. CPR 19.2(2)(a) confers jurisdiction to add a party where it is desirable to do so so that the court can resolve all matters in dispute. Unlike CPR 19.2(2)(b), it does not require an issue involving the proposed party and an existing party. Once the jurisdictional requirement is met, the court has a wide discretion, exercised in light of all relevant circumstances.
3. The proposed party’s interest in the outcome of a legal issue, including its likely effect on related proceedings, was not the relevant consideration under rule 19.2(2)(a). The question was whether joinder was desirable for resolving the matters in the present proceedings.
4. The existing parties could adequately and properly present the legal issue. Daiichi and the Comptroller would make submissions to the Court of Justice, and Novartis was not shown to be necessary or beneficial to the resolution of the dispute. Its addition would increase the burden of the reference and was unnecessary.
5. It was also potentially undesirable for Novartis to argue matters said to affect its dispute with Teva without Teva being present. Joinder risked causing the proceedings to become concerned with that separate dispute, which was not before the court and should not be introduced.

This was an application made in an appeal brought by Daiichi Sankyo. The judgment does not state the citation of the decision under appeal.