A blog site mentions a provision requiring all parties who might be a party to a claim to be listed as defendants if they are not participating as claimants, but I cannot find it again now that I want to. What provision of the civil procedure rules is this, what is the logic of it, and how does it actually work in practice?


1 Answer 1


Civil Procedure Rule 19.3 provides Provisions applicable where two or more persons are jointly entitled to a remedy:

(1) Where a claimant claims a remedy to which some other person is jointly entitled with him, all persons jointly entitled to the remedy must be parties unless the court orders otherwise.

(2) If any 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.

My reading is that it is a technical device to deal with circumstances where a number of people are severally jointly entitled to a remedy or redress but not all wish to make a claim for some reason or another.

Imagine the simplistic scenario (but hopefully not too simplistic that it loses its meaning) where Dave the defendant destroys an asset jointly and severally owned by Alice, Bob and Carol thus causing a loss to all three.

Carol does not wish to be a party to the claim so she becomes a co-defendant next to Dave, but she remains a joint and several owner - for now anyway.

If Alice's and Bob's claim is successful one potential outcome is that an order is made to award Carol's "share" ownership of the asset jointly and severally over to Alice and Bob - in effect removing Carol from the equation. Dave is then ordered to pay Alice and Bob damages.

One example of joint ownership is joint tenants who...

...have equal rights to the whole property – neither one [of you] has a specific “share” in the property

  • Well yes, but wouldn’t it make more sense to simply require that Carol‘s wish not to take part in the claim to be expressly ascertained or confirmed? It certainly doesn’t make sense to my mind for Carol to be designated as a defendant because she surely doesn’t owe Alice and Bob anything even if Dave loses the case. Why not just jointly award Alice and Bob 2/3 of the value of the asset so Carol can make up her own mind at a later date? Mar 23, 2023 at 18:21
  • Maybe because Dave has to pay 3/3, not 2/3.
    – user35069
    Mar 23, 2023 at 18:32
  • Well I’d think he wouldn’t necessarily have to pay 3/3 unless all 3/3 potential claimants are claiming their 1/3s. Mar 23, 2023 at 19:39
  • 1
    ^ As in joint tenants
    – user35069
    Mar 24, 2023 at 9:13
  • 1
    Well that makes some sense then. Mar 24, 2023 at 9:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .