National Westminster Bank Plc v King

The High Court has power under section 40(2) of the County Courts Act 1984 to transfer proceedings to a county court even where that court would not otherwise have jurisdiction because of a statutory financial limit. The words “any proceedings” are not implicitly restricted by the transferee court’s ordinary jurisdiction. On transfer, the county court obtains the jurisdiction necessary to hear and determine the proceedings. The power is subject to provisions of the kind identified in section 40(8), but those provisions do not qualify the transfer power unless they expressly do so.

The claimant obtained judgment for more than £30,000 and a charging order over residential property solely owned by the defendant. It issued proceedings in the High Court for an order for sale. A Chancery Master transferred the proceedings to the Portsmouth County Court under section 40(2) of the County Courts Act 1984. The district judge considered that section 23(c), which limited the county court’s original jurisdiction to enforcement of charges where the debt did not exceed £30,000, prevented the county court from hearing the transferred proceedings and returned them to the High Court.

The issue was whether a transfer under section 40(2) could confer jurisdiction on a county court which lacked that jurisdiction before the transfer.

1. Transfer power. Section 40(2) of the County Courts Act 1984 states in clear terms that the High Court may transfer “any proceedings” before it to a county court, subject only to the relevant express qualification. Its ordinary meaning is not confined by the county court’s pre-existing jurisdictional limits.
2. Legislative history. The legislative history conclusively supported an unlimited transfer power. Section 75A of the Supreme Court Act 1981, later re-enacted as section 40 of the County Courts Act 1974, deliberately removed monetary restrictions on transfer. The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 did not reduce that power.
3. Effect of transfer. The provisions made under section 40(8), including article 2(4) of the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991, governed the county courts’ jurisdiction but did not qualify the High Court’s transfer power. Although section 40(10)(a) was not re-enacted, it remained implicit that an effective transfer conferred jurisdiction on the county court to hear and determine the proceedings.
4. Application. The charging order concerned property in the defendant’s sole name, so section 23(c) applied to the county court’s original jurisdiction. That limit did not prevent the transferred proceedings from being heard in the Portsmouth County Court. The Master had power to make the transfer, and the proceedings were directed to remain there.
5. Costs. There was to be no order as to the costs of the jurisdiction issue and the related directions hearing.

First-instance decision. The judgment records that a Chancery Master transferred the proceedings to Portsmouth County Court, and that a district judge subsequently ordered their return to the High Court. This court held that the transfer was valid and directed that the proceedings proceed in Portsmouth County Court.