Ocado Innovation v Autostore (CoA, 10 January 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 10 January 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023, App_584498/2023), the Court of Appeal held inadmissible the applications of two firms, Mathys & Squire LLP and Bristows (Ireland) LLP, to intervene in Ocado’s appeal against an order granting a third party access to its statement of claim. For third parties tempted to join a debate of principle on access to the register, the answer is clear: an interest in how a rule is interpreted is not enough.

Question

Both firms had themselves applied for access to documents in other proceedings, one before the Munich section of the Central Division, stayed pending this appeal, the other before The Hague Local Division. Did they have an interest in the result of the action within the meaning of Rule 313.1 RoP?

Decision

The formal requirements of Rules 313.2 to 313.4 were met, the substantive test remained (paragraph 11). The required interest is a direct and existing interest in the order sought by the supported party, not in the pleas in law. Similarity between two cases is not sufficient (paragraph 12). Any effect of the decision on the proceedings pending in Munich and The Hague would result only from the guiding effect of case law, which amounts to an indirect interest only (paragraphs 13 and 14). The applications to intervene were refused as inadmissible.

Key points for practice

• Intervention requires a direct and existing interest in the order sought. The precedential effect of a decision on other cases is not enough.
• A third party interested in the interpretation of Rule 262.1(b) RoP must put its case in its own proceedings.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.1(b), 313, 314 and 331.2

Case law cited

CJEU, order of the Vice-President, 24 June 2021, ratiopharm and Others v Orion and Commission, C-220/21 P(I), relied on by Ocado.

Related decisions

• Ocado Innovation v Autostore, 17 October 2023, first instance order granting access, under appeal.
• Ocado Innovation v Respondent, 8 February 2024, order requiring the access applicant to be represented.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.