Adam Benedict Secures Dismissal of Late Joinder Application at Pre-Trial Review

When a case is approaching trial, an application to add parties can have consequences far beyond simply changing the names on the claim form. The court must ask whether their presence is needed to resolve the dispute as pleaded - and whether the proposed change can be managed fairly without putting the trial at risk.

Grace Jenkins, Senior Associate in our Litigation Department, recently secured a significant result for a defendant facing an application to add two companies as claimants. The application was heard at the pre-trial review (PTR), less than a month before trial. The court dismissed it and ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of the application.

Why did the claimant seek to add the companies?

The dispute concerned alleged oral commercial arrangements involving leases and company shares in different companies. The claimant sought to add two companies as claimants, arguing that their involvement would address the share interests and relief referred to in the particulars of claim.

We opposed the application on behalf of our client. The companies’ alleged interests were already apparent from the pleaded case, but the claimant had not satisfactorily explained why joinder was sought so close to trial. We also raised the consequences of introducing corporate claimants at that stage, including the question of security for costs.

When is joinder appropriate?

Under CPR 19.2(2), a person may be added as a party if doing so is desirable to enable the court to resolve all matters in dispute, or to resolve a connected issue involving that person and an existing party. The court exercises a discretion: a proposed party’s connection with the facts is not, by itself, the answer.

In Betta Oceanway Company v SC Tomini Trading SRL [2025] EWCA Civ 595, the Court of Appeal explained that the question whether joinder is desirable requires an assessment of the issues in the proceedings, the proposed party’s interest and the practical consequences of their participation. Although concerned with late amendments rather than joinder itself, CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd [2015] EWHC 1345 (TCC) and Donovan v Naled Ltd [2019] EWHC 1023 (QB) illustrate the importance of explaining delay and considering prejudice and the trial date.

What happened at the PTR?

The judge examined the claim as it was pleaded. Although the particulars referred to the two companies and included relief concerning shares previously issued to them, the judge concluded that the remedies sought did not require their joinder for the purpose of trying the pleaded claim. There was no application to amend the particulars of claim, nor any drafted particulars of claim accompanying the application and trial was due to begin in less than a month.

The judge also found the explanation for the application’s lateness insufficient. Adding the companies would raise a security-for-costs issue that could not properly be resolved at the PTR and was likely to put the trial dates at risk.

The court dismissed the application. Neither company was joined, and our client obtained an order for the costs of the application. The decision protected our client’s position as the case approached trial and thereby questions of legal standing in bringing such a claim remain for determination at trial. 

What can parties take from this?

A late joinder application must be assessed against the case actually pleaded, not simply the applicant’s wish to put additional parties before the court. Where trial is imminent, the applicant needs to explain why joinder is desirable, why it was not sought earlier and how any consequential issues - including costs and security for costs - can be addressed without unfairness or loss of the trial date.

Need help with a late application to add parties?

If an application to join new parties could affect your case or put a trial date at risk, our Litigation team can advise on the issues and the steps available to protect your position.

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. You should not act or refrain from acting based on its contents without seeking advice tailored to your specific circumstances.