The first time I had even considered this rule was when I was instructed on a tenancy deposit case and the Claimant had been granted a dispensation for the other tenant not to be joined to the proceedings. I suppose, being from a personal injury background, where parties would have their own remedy, the consideration of the point only came into my orbit when the causes of action were united and the Courts would look to consolidate matters, using one case as a lead case.
A prime example of shared remedies would be a housing disrepair case. What if one tenant wants to pursue the claim for damages and the other one does not? How does the matter proceed if at all? CPR 19.3 deals with this.
Pre CPR
The Court of Appeal considered consolidation (or as the case may be, deconsolidation) in the matter of Lewis and Another v Daily Telegraph Ltd (No. 2) [1964] 2 QB 601 (CA), which was a libel case of John Lewis and Rubber Improvement Limited against Daily Telegraph and Associated Newspapers. There were, essentially, four cases. The pleadings were effectively identical, and the two Defendants admitted publication but denied the defamatory meanings alleged. The four cases were consolidated into two cases (against each publisher) and at trial were awarded. The publishers appealed, seeking that the cases be deconsolidated.
The Court of Appeal held that the actions should remain consolidated because the issues were substantially the same and could be tried more conveniently together. The Court also held that co-plaintiffs must normally have the same solicitor and legal representation unless the Court orders otherwise. The appeal for deconsolidation was therefore dismissed.
CPR 19.3
CPR has a specific rule dealing with this:-
Provisions applicable where two or more persons are jointly entitled to a remedy
19.3
(1) All persons jointly entitled to the remedy claimed by a claimant must be parties unless the court orders otherwise.
(2) If any such person does not agree to be a claimant, he must be made a defendant, unless the court orders otherwise.
(3) This rule does not apply in probate proceedings.
So what does this mean? CPR 19.3 aims to ensure that the handling of litigation involving jointly owned rights is handled jointly. When multiple individuals share a single legal remedy, the Court should resolve their rights through a single set of proceedings rather than multiple actions. This rule helps prevent duplicate cases on the same issue, avoid conflicting decisions, ensure all affected parties are present, and promote fairness and efficiency in the judicial process. By requiring all joint owners to participate, the rule safeguards both parties and the Court from undertaking fractured litigation.
A person is jointly entitled to a remedy when the law gives multiple individuals an indivisible legal right. This right belongs to them collectively, not separately. Examples include joint property owners seeking possession or damages, co-contracting parties enforcing contractual rights, co-trustees acting for a trust, and co-owners of intellectual property pursuing infringement relief. The remedy belongs to all joint owners together, confirmed by recent.
In housing, this is can be damages for housing disrepair, or even a tenancy deposit breach under s214 Housing Act 2004.
So how does it work in practice?
CPR 19.3(1) states that all persons jointly entitled must be joined as parties unless the Court orders otherwise. This follows the common law that all sharing a joint cause should litigate together. Not joining all parties may lead to procedural issues and prevent full relief. However, the phrase “unless the court orders otherwise” allows the Court discretion to proceed without some parties if justice requires.
Where a prospective Claimant does not want to sue
Practical difficulties can occur when one joint entitled person refuses to participate in litigation. CPR 19.3(2) requires that unwilling joint owners be joined as Defendants, unless the Court says otherwise. This achieves two goals: it gives the Court jurisdiction over all joint rights holders and allows the willing claimant to proceed without obstruction. Joining an unwilling person as a Defendant does not mean wrongdoing; it is simply a procedural step to include all necessary parties.
The exception to the rule is where the matter is probate, as it has its own rules under CPR 57.
Step by step guide
Step 1 – the first step is to determine whether CPR 19.3 applies by establishing if the parties have a joint legal entitlement, which exists when the law recognises an indivisible right shared by multiple persons, such as joint landowners, co-contracting parties, co-trustees, or joint copyright, patent, or trademark owners pursuing infringement claims. Courts have confirmed that CPR 19.3 only applies when there is a genuine joint legal remedy.
Step 2 – Identify every prospect Claimant who is entitled to the remedy once CPR 19.3 applies. Before starting, check documents like titles, contracts, trust deeds, partnership agreements, and company records to find all legal owners. Missing any may cause delays or prevent the court from granting full relief.
Step 3 – Verify if all joint owners are prepared to act as Claimants. The next step is to confirm each joint owner’s willingness to participate. If everyone agrees, list them as Claimants on the Claim Form.
Step 4 – If someone with a joint right doesn’t want to be a Claimant, they must be added as a Defendant unless the court says otherwise. This is just a procedural step, not an accusation of wrongdoing. The reluctant party is joined because they have a legal interest in the case, allowing the Claimant to proceed and ensuring the Court can hear everyone involved.
Step 5 – When issuing proceedings, list every willing joint owner as a Claimant and any unwilling joint owner as a Defendant. Identify the substantive Defendant in the usual way and ensure that the Particulars of Claim explain why the unwilling joint owner has been joined as a Defendant pursuant to CPR 19.3(2). It is good practice to include a short explanation confirming that the party has been joined solely because CPR 19.3 requires their participation.
Step 6 – Sometimes proceedings may have already commenced before it becomes apparent that another jointly entitled person should have been included. In those circumstances, the party must be added under the Court’s powers contained within CPR Part 19, particularly CPR 19.2 and CPR 19.4. Depending upon the stage of proceedings, the parties may consent to the addition, an application may be required, or the Court may order the addition of the necessary party on its own initiative where appropriate. The objective is to ensure that all jointly entitled persons are before the Cour before final judgment.
Step 7 – Consider whether the Court may dispense with joinder. CPR 19.3 includes the qualification “unless the Court orders otherwise,” which grants the court discretion in exceptional cases. The Court may determine that joining every jointly entitled person is unnecessary or inappropriate when justice requires an alternative approach. Nonetheless, the general rule remains that all jointly entitled persons should participate unless the Court explicitly directs otherwise.
Conclusion
CPR 19.3 is a procedural rule that is easily overlooked but can have significant consequences if ignored. Before proceedings are issued, practitioners should always consider whether the remedy sought is jointly owned and, if so, ensure that all persons jointly entitled are before the Court, whether as Claimants or, where necessary, Defendants. Taking the time to address joinder issues at the outset can avoid unnecessary applications, delays, and challenges later in the litigation. Ultimately, the rule reflects the overriding objective by promoting fairness, efficiency, and finality, ensuring that disputes involving joint rights are resolved in a single, coherent set of proceedings rather than through fragmented litigation.
Information
Alec Hancock is a practising Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.
