Tai Ping Carpets UK Ltd v Arora Heathrow T5 Ltd

Where proceedings are agreed to belong in the Technology and Construction Court, the choice between London and a regional TCC centre is determined by the balance of convenience. A case issued at a convenient regional centre should ordinarily remain there. Transfer to London requires a sufficiently strong reason, assessed by reference to the parties, witnesses, solicitors, costs, the subject matter and the likely conduct of the case. If competing factors broadly cancel out, particular weight may be given to the claimant’s choice of venue. The court may also take account of the greater cost of London proceedings, especially where the claim is modest by TCC standards. The location of the works and the claimant’s size are not automatically significant factors.

The claimant brought a final account claim concerning the supply and installation of carpet at the defendant’s hotel at Heathrow. The claim was issued in the Birmingham District Registry. The parties agreed that the proceedings should be transferred to the TCC, but differed over whether case management and trial should take place in Birmingham or London.

The defendant applied for transfer to the London TCC. The claimant argued that the application should have been made in Birmingham under the general rule in CPR 23.2(1), and that the balance of convenience favoured Birmingham. The issues were the proper court to determine the transfer application, the effect of any procedural irregularity, and the appropriate location and judicial allocation.

1. Application and procedural jurisdiction. The application was properly made to a TCC judge under CPR 30.5(3), because it concerned transfer from the ordinary Queen’s Bench list to a specialist list. The general rule in CPR 23.2(1) did not require the application to be issued in the Birmingham District Registry. In any event, any procedural irregularity would have been waived to further the overriding objective, since the parties agreed that the case would not remain there.
2. Location. The governing approach in Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council v Currie & Brown Project Management Ltd [2008] EWHC 1508 (TCC) was applied. Where a regional TCC is convenient or appropriate on the balance of convenience, proceedings should generally remain there. Transfer to London is justified only where the balance of convenience makes it necessary.
3. Most factors relied on by the parties cancelled each other out. The claimant’s witnesses and solicitors were near Birmingham, while the defendant, its witnesses and legal team were near London. The subject matter being at Heathrow did not materially favour London because the dispute was principally a final account dispute and a site visit was unlikely to be required.
4. With no significant factor favouring London, particular weight was given to the claimant’s choice of venue. The court also considered the likely higher cost of London proceedings, the modest value of the claim by TCC standards, and the greater opportunity for costs control at a regional centre. The claimant’s status as a relatively small company, viewed alongside its international parent, was not independently significant.
5. The case was suitable for case management and trial by a senior Circuit Judge. It was therefore allocated accordingly, case managed and tried in the Birmingham TCC, and the defendant’s application to transfer it to London failed.