The Controversial Status of the Third party Impleaded by Forced Intervention and the Essential Solidarity Analysis

Article 184 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes a party to force the intervention of a third party in a proceeding by impleading them so that the dispute may be fully resolved. While seemingly simple on the surface, the expression “so that the dispute may be fully resolved” gives rise to substantial legal controversy, particularly in relation to the true status of the third party impleaded: do they become a defendant to the main action, or do they only have to answer for the allegations in the declaration of intervention?  

Although impleading by forced intervention is no longer subject to prior authorization, it is still possible to oppose it. The debate will therefore focus on the analysis of the necessity test. However, what does this notion of necessity, which we are told is not to be confused with the notion of utility, actually imply? The question is all the more relevant given that, unlike a recourse in warranty, forced intervention by impleading does not presume the existence of a legal relationship between the third party impleaded and the party forcing the intervention. It is not uncommon, however, for a defendant to attempt to avoid liability towards a plaintiff by adding a third party as a defendant, even though the main action contains no allegation of fault related to this party, nor does it seek any conclusions against them.

When called upon to settle the debate surrounding the possibility of adding a defendant against whom the plaintiff has not brought an action, some judges have not hesitated to impose an analysis of the solidarity, perfect or imperfect, between the third party impleaded and the party initially sued, as an essential element in the admissibility of the declaration of intervention.

Drawing on a concrete case, our speakers will discuss the basic principles of forced intervention by impleading, retrace the evolution of the legal controversy surrounding the true status of the impleaded third party, and address the issue of applying a solidarity analysis, particularly in contractual liability.

Agenda

• 8h30 -Login
• 8h30 à 10h - Presentation and question period

Cost

This training is offered free of charge.

Webinar materials and recording: If you are unable to attend the live training, choose the option to submit materials and recording on the registration page.