The applicants sought intervener or amicus status in proceedings under the Dog Owners' Liability Act involving charges of animal cruelty and dog fighting.
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to grant such status and, if so, whether it should exercise that discretion.
The court held that while statutory courts may have implied jurisdiction to appoint interveners in exceptional circumstances, the applicants failed to meet the established common law tests for intervention.
The application was denied as the applicants lacked direct interest in the matter, their participation was not practically necessary, and their interests were substantially aligned with the defendants.
