Intervention in civil proceedings: a powerful tool that can change the outcome of litigation

What is an intervention and what is the meaning of an intervention

In order to understand what exactly the concept of intervention means, it is useful to understand that court proceedings can affect more than just the direct parties to a dispute. If a dispute is about a right to a matter that may also affect the rights of another person, the law allows that third party to intervene in the proceedings. Thus, intervention means the entry of a third party into a pending civil proceeding where that person has some legal interest in the outcome of the dispute.

The word intervention has its roots in Latin – intervenire means ‘to come between’. The legal meaning is very similar: a third party “interposes” himself between the plaintiff and the defendant in order to protect his rights.

The main function of intervention is to avoid duplicative proceedings that would arise if the third party had to assert his rights in a separate action. This saves time, costs and leads to a unification of legal conclusions.

You may not be aware of it, but the institution of intervention is behind many practical situations. Imagine, for example, that there are proceedings to determine the ownership of land you have just bought and you are not involved at all. If the court were to decide without you, the effects of the judgment could significantly affect you. It is in such situations that intervention is a tool that allows you to intervene and defend your own rights.

The importance of intervention therefore lies in particular in:

• protecting the rights of persons who would otherwise not be heard,
• ensuring the efficiency and economy of the procedure,
• avoiding future litigation and legal uncertainty,
• unifying decision-making practice in similar cases.

Principal intervention – when a third party asserts his own right

Main intervention is a situation where a third party intervenes as an additional claimant because it claims that the right to the matter at issue belongs wholly or partly to it, rather than to the original parties to the proceedings.

Such an intervener brings its own action against both parties to the original proceedings. He thereby becomes an active party to the proceedings and a new proceeding is instituted, which is, however, connected with the original proceedings. Joinder ensures that the court resolves all the counterclaims at once and issues one comprehensive decision.

When does the need for a major intervention arise?

The basic condition is that the intervener claims an independent, proper right to the matter in dispute. Thus, a general interest in the outcome of the dispute is not enough. A typical example of this is where there are proceedings pending over a property that you have bought but someone else has registered in the Land Registry. If you see that the parties are litigating over a right to a property that effectively belongs to you, main intervention is a way to resolve the situation procedurally directly.

Principal intervention is specific in that the intervener is acting against both parties to the dispute – claiming that neither of them owns the right or owns it partially. It is therefore also called ‘main’, as it intervenes directly at the very heart of the dispute.

How main intervention works in practice

The intervener brings an action in the court where the original proceedings are pending. In the statement of claim, he must state precisely what his claim is and why he believes that the right belongs to him.

The court then examines whether the intervention is admissible, whether the intervener’s claim is related to the original proceedings and whether it is appropriate to join the new action with the existing proceedings.

Joinder allows the case to be dealt with in a single procedural unit. If the court were to rule separately, there could be inconsistent judgments, which is precisely the situation that the legal system wishes to avoid.

Advantages of main intervention: main intervention is a powerful tool. It brings the possibility to defend your own right directly in the proceedings that concern you, clarity and efficiency of the decision, protection from having the dispute resolved without your participation, and prevention of future legal uncertainties. For clients, principal intervention is often a way to regain control of a situation that would otherwise have been resolved without them.

Ancillary intervention – helping one of the parties to a dispute

By contrast, ancillary intervention is not about the intervenor having a claim of his or her own on the case. It is about having an interest in the outcome of the proceedings and therefore wanting to support one of the parties.

The intervener joins the plaintiff or the defendant, depending on who they want to help. His aim is not to take over the litigation, but to support the argument and supplement the chosen party’s procedural activity.

The intervener has rights similar to those of a party to the proceedings: he may propose evidence, he may make submissions and he may actively assist the party with whom he has joined.

However, he cannot take essential dispositive acts – for example, he cannot withdraw the action, enter into a settlement or terminate the proceedings. That is the prerogative of the parties.

When is secondary intervention appropriate

An intervener’s intervention is appropriate when the outcome of the dispute directly affects the intervener’s rights, but not in such a fundamental way as to give rise to a claim of its own. For example:

• the insurance company intervenes on the side of the insured,
• the guarantor has an interest in the debtor winning the dispute,
• a tenant supports a property owner in a neighbour dispute because he would be prejudiced by the outcome.

The key is that the intervener must demonstrate a legal interest, not just a general sympathy.

Why intervening is important

Intervening can significantly affect the course of the proceedings. It allows the intervener to add to the argument, to bring in new evidence or legal perspectives that the original party might not have brought in itself.

In practice, it is often a strategic move where the intervener helps to protect its indirect interest by promoting a stronger legal position for the party that it favours.

The difference between main and ancillary intervention

Although both are referred to by the word intervention, they differ in substance:

• Principal Intervention: the intervener asserts its own claim and acts as plaintiff against both parties.
• Intervener does not have a claim of its own, but intervenes in support of one of the parties.

A main intervention creates a new proceeding, an intervening intervention does not. The main intervener intervenes on the merits, the intervener merely strengthens the position of one party. A main intervention is a direct threat to the intervener’s rights, an intervener’s intervention indirectly affects the intervener’s legal position.

We can also help you with intervention

The institution of intervention is a unique procedural tool that allows third parties to actively protect their rights in proceedings that may fundamentally affect them. Whether pursuing one’s own claim through a main intervention or supporting a party through an intervening intervention, it is always the case that a proper understanding of the situation and a timely response can make all the difference to the outcome of the proceedings.

If you are unsure whether you should intervene or whether you have a legal interest that could be protected through intervention, please contact us. We can help you assess which course of action is most appropriate in your case and guide you through the process.

Summary

Intervention is a procedural tool of civil litigation that allows a third party to intervene in a pending dispute if they have a legal interest or claim in the matter. It aims to protect the rights of those who would otherwise stand outside the proceedings, avoid duplicative litigation and increase the efficiency and fairness of adjudication. There are two types of intervention: main intervention, where the intervener asserts its own right to the matter in dispute and brings an action against both parties, thereby intervening directly on the merits of the dispute and creating new, often joined, proceedings; and ancillary intervention, where the intervener has no claim of its own but steps in to support one of the parties, for example as an insurer or guarantor, and strengthens its position by its arguments or evidence, without being able to take substantial dispositive action. Intervention thus contributes to the protection of third party rights, the unification of decision-making practice and the prevention of future disputes, while the correct choice and timing of its application can have a major impact on the outcome of the proceedings.