In the case of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">W Clappison Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd [2025] EWHC 1459 (Ch)</span>, the court granted an application by the Groceries Code Adjudicator (“<span class="news-text_medium">GCA</span>”) to intervene in a contractual dispute between a supplier and a supermarket. The court confirmed that its authority to allow the GCA's intervention was grounded in CPR 19.2(2)(a), rather than under CPR 3.1(2)(p) or the court's inherent jurisdiction.
The court concluded that the GCA’s intervention would add objectivity and aid in understanding the broader context and potential implications of different interpretations of the Groceries Code beyond the specific case at hand.
This judgment provides useful guidance on the court's jurisdiction to permit interveners to join proceedings under CPR 19.2(2)(a). The case hinged on whether the supermarket had violated a Code of Practice (“<span class="news-text_medium">Code</span>”) incorporated into the contract by statutory regulations. The GCA, having arbitrated Code-related disputes and issued relevant guidance in the course of its statutory duties, sought to contribute its expertise in resolving, for the first time, questions concerning the Code’s meaning and construction.
Master Bowles acknowledged that he had jurisdiction to allow the GCA's intervention under CPR 19.2(2)(a), which permits the addition of a party "if it is desirable […] so that the court can resolve all the matters in dispute in the proceedings". He disagreed with the notion that CPR 3.1(2)(p) or the court’s inherent jurisdiction applied to such cases.
He dismissed the suggestion from <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Golden Eye (International) Ltd v Telefonica UK Ltd [2021] EWHC 723 (Ch)</span>, which had argued that no express power under the CPR existed for this type of intervention. Instead, he affirmed that jurisdiction existed under CPR 19.2(2)(a) and in situations where a general power existed alongside a specific one, the specific power should be applied.
The court emphasised that the ability to permit intervention under CPR 19.2(2)(a) was not limited to cases where the intervener would be directly or indirectly impacted by the outcome. Interventions had been allowed by parties without such an interest when it was considered useful for helping the court resolve the issues in dispute.
The Court of Appeal had allowed similar interventions in cases such as <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Westlaw Services Ltd v Boddy [2010] 6 Costs LR 934 (with the SRA intervening)</span> and <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Soleymani v Nifty Gateway LLC [2023] 1 WLR 436 (with the CMA intervening)</span>. Master Bowles saw no reason to approach intervention at first instance differently. He stressed, however, that interventions aimed at promoting the intervening party’s own interests would not be permitted.
In this instance, the court considered that the GCA’s intervention would offer objectivity and help the court better understand the broader implications of the Code's interpretation beyond the immediate case. To prevent duplication, the GCA's written submissions, limited to a maximum of 30 pages, were to be served before trial skeletons and the GCA was allotted one hour to present its argument during the eight-day trial.
