Success for Nia Marshall on the Multi-Track

February 20, 2026

Nia Marshall successfully represented the Proposed Second Defendant (PD2) in a complex employer’s liability claim in which the Claimant (C) alleged that he contracted Legionnaire’s Disease. C advanced that PD2 should be added to the proceedings because a TUPE transfer occurred.

C issued an application under CPR 19.2(2)(a) and (b), 19.6(2)(a) and (b), 19.6(3)(b), 19.6(4) and section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 seeking to add both the Proposed Second and Third Defendants to the proceedings. The Proposed Third Defendant (PD3) was represented by Patrick Limb KC.

Recognising the overlap in the issues relating to the proposed additions, Nia and Patrick developed a strategic and cooperative approach while each maintaining focus on the distinct factual and legal nuances relevant to their own clients’ positions. Their oral submissions were supported by detailed and persuasive skeleton arguments that assisted the Court in navigating the legal, procedural and limitation complexities.

A central issue in the application was whether a TUPE transfer had occurred. Nia successfully persuaded the Judge that the legal and evidential non-existence of a TUPE transfer was directly relevant to both the necessity of adding PD2 to the proceedings and the limitation arguments advanced by C.

The Court concluded that it was not satisfied that it was either necessary or desirable to join PD2 or PD3 as parties. The Judge stated that he was not satisfied that he should exercise his discretion under CPR19.6(4). In respect of PD2, the Judge noted that on the face of it, there wasn’t evidence before the court on TUPE. The legal test for the occurrence of a TUPE transfer was not made out.

Costs (QOCS)

This was the third of three application hearings in which Nia represented PD2, with two prior hearings also involving applications for non‑party disclosure and inspection. Both Proposed Defendants successfully argued that CPR 44.13(1) disapplies QOCS protection to applications brought under section 52(2) of the County Court Act 1984, enabling them to seek their costs pursuant to CPR 46.2.

The Court agreed, and both Proposed Defendants were awarded their costs. PD2 recovered their costs in full in accordance with their costs schedule.

Nia was instructed by Kieren Barr of Stephensons Solicitors LLP.