[1] This case involves an allegation by an insurer that there is fraud and collusion between their insured (defendant) and the third party claimant (plaintiff) in a running down action. The insurers, who would be liable to satisfy any judgment against their insured/defendant by virtue of s 96 of the Road Transport Act 1987 , applied to intervene in the running down action, albeit that they were already having conduct of the defence in that action which was before the Sessions Court.

[2] Thus, the issue that arose for consideration in this case is whether in a running down action, where insurers are already having conduct of the defence on behalf of their insured/defendant, may nevertheless be allowed [under O 15 r 6(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 2012] to intervene and added as a co-defendant where they have reason to believe that there is fraud and collusion between the insured/defenda