Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council v Currie & Brown Project Management Ltd & Anor.

In TCC proceedings issued at a regional centre, transfer to London is justified only where the balance of convenience and fairness favours London. The size, complexity, importance and value of a case do not ordinarily require transfer merely to secure management or trial by a High Court judge. A High Court judge may sit at the regional centre. Assignment as “HCJ” depends on the relevant case characteristics, judicial resources and the criteria in the TCC Guide. Procedural irregularities may be waived under the overriding objective where the application can fairly and efficiently be determined without prejudice to the other party.

The defendants applied for proceedings concerning a substantial waste-to-energy PFI project to be transferred from the Bristol District Registry TCC to the London TCC. They also sought classification as “HCJ”, so that the case would be managed and tried by a High Court judge. The applications had been made by letter and to the wrong judicial forum, contrary to the applicable procedural requirements. The claimant opposed the applications on procedural and substantive grounds.

The court considered whether the irregularities should prevent determination of the applications, whether transfer to London was justified, and whether the case merited management and trial by a High Court judge while remaining in Bristol.

1. Procedural irregularities. The applications should have been made by application notice in the Bristol District Registry, with supporting evidence, and the request for High Court assignment should first have been made to the principal TCC judge in Bristol. Nevertheless, the irregularities were waived under the overriding objective. The applications were heard in Bristol, any evidential deficiency principally affected the defendants, experienced counsel had made detailed submissions, and efficient use of court resources favoured determination on the merits.
2. Transfer to London. In regional TCC cases, where a regional centre is convenient or appropriate on the balance of convenience, proceedings should generally remain there. The availability of specialist judges, the complexity and value of the claim, and public importance do not ordinarily require transfer merely so that a High Court judge can hear the case. High Court TCC judges can sit on circuit. The central consideration under CPR rule 30.3(2)(b) was whether hearings would be more convenient or fair in London. The defendants’ asserted additional London costs were unsupported by evidence. The balance favoured Bristol, and the transfer application was refused.
3. HCJ classification. The case merited management and trial by a High Court judge. Its rectification claim, issues concerning a due diligence report, alleged duties of care and associated estoppel demonstrated substantial legal complexity. The claim’s value, approximately £54 million, and the insurance difficulties also increased its importance.
4. Directions. General case management was to remain with the principal TCC judge in Bristol, in consultation with the Judge in Charge where appropriate. A High Court judge would be available for important interlocutory matters and would conduct the pre-trial review and trial.

The proceedings were issued in the Bristol District Registry and later transferred to the TCC. The judgment records no appeal from the present decision.