W Clappison Limited v Aldi Stores Limited

Under CPR 19.2(2)(a), the court may join an intervener with no direct or indirect interest where intervention would desirably assist the court in resolving the matters in dispute. That jurisdiction is available at first instance as well as on appeal.

The proposed intervention must assist the court, rather than advance the intervener’s own agenda or support one party. A specific procedural power should ordinarily be applied in preference to a general case-management power. An intervener may provide objective submissions on the wider purpose, context and practical operation of incorporated regulatory terms, subject to safeguards against duplication and advocacy.

W Clappison Limited brought a contractual damages claim against Aldi Stores Limited arising from the rejection of its tender for the 2023/2024 Brussels sprout season. The claim alleges breach of supply-contract terms incorporated through the Groceries (Supply Chain Practices) Market Investigation Order 2009 and its Groceries Supply Code of Practice.

The Groceries Code Adjudicator applied to be joined as an intervener. Aldi opposed the application, principally on the grounds of duplication and the absence of any need for further guidance. The issue was whether joinder would be desirable to assist the court in determining the dispute, particularly the proper construction and application of the incorporated Code provisions.

1. The Groceries Code Adjudicator’s application to intervene was granted under CPR 19.2(2)(a), subject to limits on the length and timing of written submissions and oral argument.

2. The power to add a party where desirable to resolve all matters in dispute is not confined to persons directly or indirectly affected by the outcome. It may extend to a person whose intervention would materially assist the court. The same approach applies at first instance and on appeal.

3. The essential requirement is that intervention be desirable as an assistance to the court in resolving the dispute, rather than desirable in the interests or according to the agenda of the intervener. A person seeking to support one side, or merely to advance arguments already made, should not be joined.

4. The specific jurisdiction in CPR 19.2(2)(a) should ordinarily be used instead of the general power in CPR 3.1(2)(p). The contrary view expressed in Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Telefonica UK Ltd was incorrect and was not followed.

5. Intervention was desirable here because the contractual terms in issue were incorporated by the Order and intended to operate across a wide range of retailer–supplier relationships. The GCA could provide objective assistance on the purpose and mischief of the Code, its wider context, the practical effects of competing constructions, and potentially relevant areas of evidence. The GCA could not give evidence or provide ad hoc guidance directed to the result in this case.

6. The concerns identified in Re E (a Child) about duplication were met by requiring the GCA’s submissions to precede the parties’ pre-trial submissions, thereby allowing parties to adopt rather than repeat them.