Molavi v Hibbert & Ors

An application to join new parties under CPR 19.2 requires identification of the relevant statutory limb and satisfaction of its conditions. The conditions under rules 19.2(2)(a) and (b) are distinct, and satisfaction of either does not automatically require joinder. The court must exercise an overall case-management discretion in accordance with the overriding objective. Joinder is inappropriate where the proposed party cannot materially assist in resolving the existing dispute, or where the connection between claims is insubstantial and separate proceedings would avoid unnecessary cost and delay. A person who can give relevant evidence may be adequately dealt with as a witness rather than as a party.

The claimant brought an intellectual-property and related contractual claim against Guy Hibbert and The Forge Entertainment Limited concerning ideas presented to ITV in 2017. After the BBC broadcast an episode of Silent Witness, she sought to join Nigel McCrery and the BBC as defendants so that a proposed claim concerning that broadcast could be added to the existing proceedings.

The application was made under CPR 19.2. The court considered whether either statutory limb was satisfied, whether joinder was desirable in the circumstances, and the case-management consequences of combining the two disputes.

1. The application to join Nigel McCrery and the BBC was dismissed. The existing ITV claim was to proceed within the short and flexible trials scheme.
2. There is no inherent or general discretion to add a party. The power derives from CPR 19.2. The two limbs in rule 19.2(2) are independent, and satisfaction of one or both threshold conditions does not automatically lead to joinder. The court must stand back and exercise an overall discretion by reference to the overriding objective.
3. Under rule 19.2(2)(a), the applicant must show that the proposed party can assist the court to resolve the matters in issue and that it is desirable to add that party for that purpose. The BBC had no involvement in the ITV claim. Mr McCrery might assist as a witness, but adding him as a defendant would add cost and delay without materially assisting resolution of the existing issues.
4. Under rule 19.2(2)(b), three conditions apply: an issue must be identified between the proposed new party and an existing party; it must be connected with matters already in issue; and joinder must be desirable to resolve it. An issue need not amount to a cause of action. Connection is fact-sensitive and may arise from overlapping evidence or from the proposed party’s interest in being bound by the outcome.
5. The proposed Betrayal claim and the ITV claim concerned different events, works, evidence, legal issues and centres of gravity. The overlap was minor, Mr McCrery’s involvement was peripheral, and the BBC had no interest in the outcome of the ITV claim. Combining the claims would cause delay and substantial unnecessary expense, contrary to the overriding objective.
6. The court declined to determine whether the proposed claims had reasonable prospects of success. Any such observations would have been obiter and would not create a res judicata estoppel in the absence of a lis between the claimant and the proposed parties.