Credico Marketing Ltd & Anor v Lambert & Anor

Joinder is discretionary. The court must first establish that one of the independent conditions in CPR 19.2(2)(a) or CPR 19.2(2)(b) is satisfied. It must then decide whether joinder is desirable and consistent with the overriding objective.

At the joinder stage, the court considers whether the proposed claim has a good arguable case. It must avoid conducting a mini-trial, but may consider witness evidence served for the application where fairness and practicality require it. Connected claims should generally be heard together where their factual evidence substantially overlaps and doing so is fair and proportionate.

Amendments should ordinarily be allowed where they determine the real dispute and any prejudice can be managed through costs or case-management directions.

The claimants sought permission to add three proposed defendants to existing proceedings concerning alleged breaches of restrictive covenants and contractual undertakings. They also sought to amend the Claim Form to add claims for inducing breach of contract, damages, misuse of confidential information and an account of profits.

The proposed additional defendants argued that the new claims lacked reasonable prospects of success and that joinder would be unfair and disproportionate given the expedited trial timetable. The court had to determine whether the statutory conditions for joinder and amendment were met, whether joinder was desirable under the overriding objective, and how the proceedings should be managed.

1. Joinder. Permission was granted to add Gilles Jean Baudet, Power 21 Limited and The Interactive Team Limited as defendants, and to amend the Claim Form to include the proposed claims.
2. Under CPR 19.2(2)(a), the court must identify both whether the proposed party can assist in resolving all matters in dispute and whether adding that party is desirable for that purpose. Under CPR 19.2(2)(b), there must be an issue involving the proposed and existing parties, that issue must be connected with the matters already in dispute, and joinder must be desirable to resolve it.
3. The conditions under the two limbs are independent. Satisfaction of a condition does not make joinder automatic. The court retains a discretion and must apply the overriding objective, including the policy of enabling persons whose rights may be affected to be heard.
4. The proposed inducement claims met the good arguable case threshold. The court was entitled to consider Mr Baudet’s witness evidence, even though the draft pleading pre-dated it, because the evidence had been served and relied upon in contesting the application. It would have been artificial to disregard it. The court did not conduct a mini-trial and left questions of inference for trial.
5. The claims were closely connected. The alleged breach of the restrictive covenants and the alleged inducement involved overlapping evidence, including communications and meetings involving Mr Baudet and Mr Lambert. Hearing the claims together would enable the totality of the evidence to be considered at one trial and was fair and proportionate.
6. The proposed amendments adding damages and an account of profits were allowed under CPR 17.1. They concerned the real dispute and any prejudice could be managed by confining the expedited trial to liability and injunctive relief, revising the timetable and increasing the time estimate.
7. The costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the case.