Adding insurer as an additional party under CPR 20, CPR 19 and CPR 3 refused where no connection to current proceedings (XYZ v Various companies (PIP implant litigation))

Table of contents

• Practical implications
• Facts
• Why did the court refuse to join the insurer as an additional party?
• Under CPR 19
• Under CPR 20
• Under CPR 3.1(2)(m)
• Correct use of court's case management powers under CPR 3.1
• Court details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: the court has resoundingly rejected an application by an insurer to join another insurer as an additional party, the application in effect being designed to establish in advance how much money was available from that insurer to meet any future claims. The application under CPR 19 and CPR 20 failed as there was no connection between the main proceedings and the issues between the two insurers. The application failed under CPR 3 since it was not the function of the court’s general case management powers to circumvent the effect of other specific rules in the CPR.