UCPR r 14.14(2)(a) requires a defendant to plead, at least in the alternative, the involvement of a non-party where the defendant proposes to call evidence that would inevitably indicate that involvement; the rule is broader than UCPR r 14.7 and is not confined to material facts on which the party relies. The 'ambush theory of litigation' — keeping powder dry by withholding evidence of a non-party's involvement — is contrary to the tenor of r 14.14(2)(a). Credit-based findings of a primary judge will not be set aside on appeal unless the errors relied upon are individually or collectively sufficient to meet the Fox v Percy threshold of being contrary to incontrovertible facts, glaringly improbable, or contrary to compelling inferences.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.