Chliaifchtein v Jessop

Applications to transfer proceedings into the Technology and Construction Court must be determined by weighing the matters identified in CPR 30.3(2). For low-value claims, the financial value and associated costs considerations will ordinarily carry substantial weight. The existence of an interesting, legally complex or technically specialised issue does not by itself justify transfer where the claim can be dealt with effectively in a county court technology and construction list by an experienced designated judge. The guidance that claims below £250,000 should generally be commenced in county courts or other suitable centres applies subject to recognised exceptions, including claims involving adjudication, international work, difficult points of law, declarations, injunctions and complex multi-party nuisance claims.

The claimant sought to transfer proceedings against a third party wall surveyor from the Central London County Court Technology and Construction List to the Technology and Construction Court. The claim arose from a third surveyor’s party wall award concerning building works in Belgravia. The defendant argued that, in exercising a quasi-judicial function, he owed no duty of care and was immune from suit.

The claim was worth approximately £17,000. The county court had an experienced technology and construction judge, had already dealt with related proceedings and had listed a costs and case management hearing. The central issue was whether the importance or complexity of the immunity point outweighed the ordinary transfer considerations.

1. Application refused. The claim was to remain in the Central London County Court Technology and Construction List.
2. CPR 30.3(2) required the court to consider matters including the financial value of the claim, convenience and fairness, the availability of specialist judges, the simplicity or complexity of the issues, the public importance of the outcome, and the facilities available.
3. The guidance in West Country Renovations Ltd v Mr and Mrs McDowell [2012] EWHC 307 (TCC) was applicable. Claims worth less than £250,000 should generally be commenced in county courts or other High Court centres with designated Technology and Construction Court judges, subject to a non-exclusive list of exceptions.
4. The present claim fell substantially below that threshold. The Central London County Court had judges experienced in construction litigation, one of whom had already dealt with related issues and had given directions. The imminent costs and case management hearing was an additional reason against transfer.
5. The immunity issue concerning a third party wall surveyor was interesting, but it was neither a matter of great public importance nor particularly complex. In any event, those considerations were overwhelmed by the value of the claim and the other transfer factors. As a general rule, basic costs considerations would usually take precedence over alleged legal interest or complexity.
6. The related claim against another surveyor had been issued in the Technology and Construction Court and was considered to have been issued in error. No order was made concerning it because the relevant solicitors were absent and had no notice.