Collins & Ors v Drumgold & Ors

Applications to transfer county court proceedings to the Technology and Construction Court should be made to the receiving court, with notice to the county court. The court should consider the factors in CPR 30.3(2), including the claim’s suitability for the TCC, financial value, complexity, convenience, costs and the overriding objective. Complexity will usually be the critical factor. A claim need not be transferred merely because it exceeds the High Court’s financial threshold. Transfer is particularly appropriate where the dispute involves technical construction issues, related professional negligence claims and substantial expert evidence, provided the case remains at a sufficiently early stage and transfer is fair and proportionate.

The claim concerned alleged foundation defects and heave damage to three houses. The claimants sued the building contractor and other defendants, including an architect and engineer, alleging breach of contract, statutory duty and related professional obligations. Issues included geotechnical design and construction, causation, professional standards, the Defective Premises Act 1972 and limitation.

The second defendant applied to transfer the proceedings from Cambridge County Court to the Technology and Construction Court. The claimants argued that the application should first have been made to the county court and opposed transfer on procedural and practical grounds. The court determined the correct procedure and whether the claim should be transferred.

1. Procedure. Section 41(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 empowered the High Court to order the transfer of county court proceedings. An application from a county court to the High Court is generally made under CPR 30.3, and an application to a specialist list under CPR 30.5. The application was therefore correctly made to the receiving TCC, with notice to the county court. CPR 30.2(3), which concerns transfers between county courts, did not apply.
2. Relevant approach. The court should consider the factors in CPR 30.3(2), read with the overriding objective in CPR 1.1. It should first ask whether the dispute falls within, or is connected with, a type of claim identified in paragraph 2.1 of the Part 60 Practice Direction. The list is illustrative and should be construed broadly.
3. Where the claim is suitable for the TCC, the court should assess its financial value and complexity. Financial value is a yardstick for importance and complexity, but exceeding the High Court threshold does not automatically justify transfer. Complexity will ordinarily be the critical factor, and the benefit required to justify transfer increases with the complexity of the dispute.
4. Convenience may be relevant, but is usually of limited significance where the county court and regional TCC are geographically comparable. The court must also consider the higher potential costs of High Court proceedings and whether specialist case management may reduce overall costs.
5. Application. The dispute was a substantial and technically complex building claim of the type suitable for the TCC. It involved interrelated legal, geotechnical, engineering and professional negligence issues, several potential experts and substantial pleadings. Although proceedings had begun more than two years earlier, they remained at a relatively early stage because witness statements and expert reports had not been prepared and pleadings had only recently closed. Transfer would not significantly increase costs and might reduce them through specialist case management.
6. The action was transferred from Cambridge County Court to the TCC in London and assigned to a Senior Circuit Judge.