Appleby Global Group LLC v British Broadcasting Corporation & Anor

In deciding whether to transfer proceedings between High Court Divisions, the court must exercise its discretion in accordance with the overriding objective. It should adopt a pragmatic approach, assessing which venue is most appropriate in light of the issues pleaded, the relative judicial expertise and experience, and any material saving in time or cost. Where the difference between venues is insignificant, the claimant’s choice of Division will ordinarily be respected. The existence of a specialist media list does not, without more, require media-related claims commenced elsewhere to be transferred to it.

Appleby commenced a breach of confidence claim in the Chancery Division against the BBC and Guardian News and Media Limited. It alleged that the defendants had accessed and published confidential documents obtained from Appleby’s computer server and sought damages, injunctive relief and disclosure or delivery up of documents.

The BBC applied to transfer the claim to the Media and Communications List in the Queen’s Bench Division. The defendants relied on the likely importance of public interest, freedom of expression, journalistic practice and source-protection issues. The central issue was whether transfer would secure the just and proportionate determination of the claim.

1. Application refused. The court declined to transfer the claim from the Business List (ChD) to the Media and Communications List.
2. The starting point was the claimant’s general right under Senior Courts Act 1981, sections 5, 61 and 64, to commence proceedings in the Division it considered appropriate. That choice was subject to the statutory transfer power and CPR rule 30.5.
3. Following Natl Amusements (UK) Ltd v White City (Shepherds Bush) Ltd Partnership [2009] EWHC 2524 (TCC), the court adopted a pragmatic approach. It considered where the preponderance of the issues lay, the experience and expertise of the judges in each venue, and any significant difference in expedition or cost. Where the difference was insignificant, the status quo would generally be maintained.
4. The likely central issue was the defendants’ public interest defence, together with issues concerning Article 10, responsible journalism, confidentiality, privilege, source protection and remedies. Those issues were suitable for determination in the Chancery Division. Media-law expertise was not exclusive to the Media and Communications List.
5. The Media and Communications List was not a specialist list within CPR rule 2.3(2). Its creation did not require media cases commenced elsewhere to be transferred against the claimant’s wishes. Both venues were sufficiently experienced and able to address the issues, and transfer was not shown to produce greater expedition, lower cost or a fairer determination.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.