ITP SA (“ITP”) applied to be named or added as a Respondent on an Appeal by the Plaintiff CNOOC Petroleum (“CNOOC”) regarding disputed privilege claims advanced by CNOOC over certain records. During a prior Application, one of the Defendants contested some of CNOOC's privilege claims, and ITP actively participated in that Application by filing written materials and making submissions. Subsequently, CNOOC appealed the Order resulting from that Application but identified ITP's status in the Appeal as "not a party on Appeal."

Citing Rule 14.1(1)(m), which defines “Respondent” as a person named as a Respondent to an Appeal, Strekaf J.A. noted that ITP was not named by CNOOC and rejected ITP’s submission to be confirmed as a party.

Strekaf J.A. then laid out the test for adding an Applicant as a Respondent under Rule 14.57: (i) whether the Applicant has a legal interest in the outcome of the proceedings; (ii) whether it is just and convenient to add the Applicant; and (iii) whether the Applicant’s interests can be adequately protected only if it is granted party status.

Applying the above test, Strekaf J.A. held that ITP should be added as a Respondent. Strekaf J.A. determined that ITP had a legal interest in the proceedings, brought this Application promptly, and were entitled to have their own counsel address the issues. As such, the Application was granted.