Corby Group Litigation v Corby Borough Council

The appropriate forum for proceedings is determined by whether they involve technically complex issues or whether trial by a Technology and Construction Court judge is desirable. Personal injury claims may properly be transferred where their underlying issues concern matters within the TCC’s jurisdiction, including local-authority statutory duties relating to land development and environmental pollution. The personal injury character of the claims does not by itself require them to remain in the Queen’s Bench Division. Relevant considerations include the TCC judges’ wider Queen’s Bench experience, the need for effective management of group litigation, and the court’s experience in managing complex expert evidence.

The claimants brought group litigation against a local authority under a group litigation order made in the Queen’s Bench Division. The claims concerned serious limb deformities in children, allegedly caused by toxic waste released during the reclamation and decontamination of a former steelworks site.

The proceedings raised issues of negligence, breach of statutory duty, public nuisance, foreseeability and causation. The defendant applied to transfer the proceedings to the Technology and Construction Court. The central issue was whether the personal injury claims would be more conveniently managed and tried there.

1. The application for transfer was granted, subject to the consent of Sir Igor Judge, President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
2. The governing test was whether the claims involved issues or questions that were technically complex, or whether trial by a Technology and Construction Court judge was desirable. Under Practice Direction 60, the claims fell within the types of matter suitable for the TCC. They concerned a local authority’s statutory duties relating to land development and environmental pollution.
3. The fact that the claims were for personal injury did not make the Queen’s Bench Division the more convenient forum. TCC judges were Queen’s Bench judges and also heard general cases, including personal injury claims. The distinction between a Queen’s Bench judge and a TCC Queen’s Bench judge had consequently diminished.
4. The proceedings were subject to a group litigation order and required continuing management by a managing judge. The TCC’s substantial experience in judicial case management supported transfer, particularly as Master Leslie had already carried out extensive case management.
5. The expert evidence was expected to cover waste-disposal programme management, toxicology, epidemiology, air-pollution science and safety-risk management. The TCC had particular experience in managing evidence in those fields, especially the technical and environmental aspects of the case.
6. Transfer would enable a judge with a wider remit to continue the existing case management and give directions concerning expert evidence. The proceedings were therefore ordered to be transferred to the TCC, subject to the stated consent.