What's on Practical Law?

TCC guidance on where to issue claims valued at less than £250, 000

Practical Law UK Legal Update Case Report 9-518-1675 (Approx. 4 pages)

TCC guidance on where to issue claims valued at less than £250,000

by PLC Construction
Related Content
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has issued guidance that claims valued at less than £250,000 should be issued in county courts or High Courts outside London that have designated TCC judges, rather than in the TCC in the High Court in London. (Free access.)
Speedread

Speedread

The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has issued guidance that claims valued at less than £250,000 should be issued in county courts or High Courts outside London that have designated TCC judges. Such claims should not routinely be issued in the TCC in the High Court in London. The guidance also provides a non-exhaustive list of exceptions to this rule (including adjudication enforcement and Part 8 claims).
In handing down judgment, Akenhead J said that a practice direction could not "readily be given", but was making this order to overcome a real risk of the TCC in the High Court in London having insufficient High Court judges to deal with its business. The case before the court did not have any issues of "general public importance" (such as a novel point of law or construction of a standard building contract) which required it to be kept in the High Court, so it was transferred to the Central London County Court, which has three designated TCC judges. (West Country Renovations Ltd v McDowell and another [2012] EWHC 307 (TCC).)
If you don’t yet subscribe to PLC, you can request a free trial by completing this form or contacting the PLC Helpline.

Facts in West Country Renovations v McDowell

West Country Renovations Ltd (the contractor) was engaged by Mr and Mrs McDowell (the employer) to undertake building works at their premises. A dispute arose over the contractor's final account, with the contractor claiming an additional £104,000. Proceedings were issued in the TCC in the High Court in London and the matter came before Akenhead J for the first case management conference (CMC) on 17 February 2012.
At the CMC, the court informed the parties that the case was being transferred to the Central London County Court, despite both parties "politely but forcefully" arguing to stay in the High Court. The parties' reasons included the efficiency of the TCC, early trial dates and the likelihood of the matter settling, which would not be assisted by the transfer process.
Akenhead J concluded by explaining that there was "no good reason" why the Central London County Court could not effectively case manage and try the case within a reasonable time (the parties had agreed a timetable to trial in December 2012). The case did not have any issues of "general public importance, such as some novel point of law or construction of a standard building contract" (paragraph 13, judgment).

Guidance on where to issue

Akenhead J explained that there is a real risk that the TCC in the High Court in London will have insufficient High Court judges to deal with its caseload. In part, this has arisen due to its own success and also to the retirement of a number of circuit judges (who previously dealt with the smaller matters listed in the London TCC). Consequently, the TCC High Court judges agreed to issue guidance, namely that:
"Generally, claims which are for less than £250,000 should be commenced in County Courts or other High Court centres outside London which have TCC designated judges." (Paragraph 1, guidance.)
(Paragraph 10, judgment.)
Subject to a number of exceptions (see Exceptions), the TCC in the High Court in London will normally consider transfer of a claim, either of its own motion, or on application by one of the parties, at the first CMC (paragraph 11, judgment). The case will normally be transferred to the Central London County Court, unless there is a more convenient court (paragraph 12, judgment).

Exceptions

Paragraph (2) of the guidance sets out a "non-exclusive list of exceptions" to this general rule:
"(a) Cases involving adjudications, including enforcements and arbitrations may be started in the High Court, irrespective of the financial amount involved; this is justified by the need to build up a body of case law which is consistent in these important areas of construction law business.
(b) International cases of any value will ordinarily be accepted. These will involve cases between non-resident (in the UK) parties or cases involving foreign projects or developments. This is explicable on the basis that for such cases, London is, commonly if not invariably, the first port of call in such cases, overseas parties will expect a TCC High Court judge to hear the case and the judges here are experienced in international work.
(c) Cases involving new or difficult points of law in TCC business or which have issues of technical complexity suitable for a High Court judge.
(d) Any test case or case which will be joined with others which will be treated as test cases. Examples could be a fire supposedly caused by a washing machine, car or lorry where the value of the claim is a five- or six-figure sum but it may be joined with others in which similar points are being taken.
(e) Public procurement cases. As the TCC in London has built up an expertise and experience over the last 4 years, it is sensible if the judges in the TCC deal with this interesting, important and developing area of law and practice.
(f) Part 8 and other claims for declarations.
(g) Claims which cannot readily be dealt with effectively in a County Court or Civil Justice centre by a designated TCC judge.
(h) Complex nuisance claims brought by a number of parties, even where the sums claimed are small.
(i) Claims for injunctions."
Paragraph (2) concludes with a very wide-ranging exception for "any other good reason" why the case should be heard in the TCC in the High Court in London.
(Paragraph 10, judgment.)

Comment

We anticipate that this guidance will have caught many practitioners off-guard and is likely to be of concern, especially to those who represent parties where the claim is near the new threshold, but not quite high enough to issue in the TCC in the High Court in London. As Akenhead J himself accepts, the TCC has become a victim of its own success in recent years, but four High Court judges cannot do the work that eight judges used to do. Unfortunately, at present, the county courts do not share the TCC's reputation for efficiency.
That said, if one looks carefully at the exceptions, it may be possible to find one that may help a party to stay in the High Court, for example, the case may be technically complex (exception 2(c)). Just be aware that the judges may transfer the claim, whether that is what the parties really want or not.

Case

West Country Renovations Ltd v McDowell and another [2012] EWHC 307 (TCC) (23 February 2012).
End of Document
Resource ID 9-518-1675
© 2024 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
Published on 24-Feb-2012
Resource Type Legal update: case report
Jurisdictions
  • England
  • Wales
Related Content