Mezvinsky & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd

The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction over claims that may be issued in more than one Division. A claimant’s choice of Division is relevant, but it does not create a presumption that the claim will remain there.

An application to transfer between Divisions is governed by appropriateness, assessed in light of the overriding objective. The court should consider the issues, relative judicial expertise, expedition, cost and proportionality. Where both venues have adequate expertise and no material advantage is established, the claim should ordinarily remain where issued. The Media and Communications List is an internal allocation mechanism within the Queen’s Bench Division, not a specialist list with extra-divisional effect.

The claimants, children of Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky, brought proceedings against the publisher of Mail Online concerning photographs published in a series of online articles. The claims concerned misuse of private information and alleged breach of the data protection principles.

The defendant applied to transfer the claim from the Business List (ChD) to the Media and Communications List in the Queen’s Bench Division. The application was based principally on the asserted specialist character of the Media and Communications List, its judicial expertise and anticipated efficiency. The central issue was whether the Queen’s Bench Division was the appropriate, or more appropriate, venue for the claim.

1. Concurrent jurisdiction. The three Divisions of the High Court possess the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under the Senior Courts Act 1981. Claims for misuse of private information are not assigned exclusively to one Division. Subject to the power of transfer, section 64 recognises the claimant’s choice of Division.
2. Status of the lists. The Media and Communications List was created as a means of allocating work already within the Queen’s Bench Division. It was not created by statute, the CPR or a Practice Direction and is not a specialist list with extra-divisional effect. The Business List (ChD) is likewise not a specialist list in the technical CPR sense. The creation of the Business and Property Courts changed the organisational description of the Chancery Division but did not remove privacy claims from its jurisdiction.
3. Transfer test. Applying Natl Amusements (UK) Ltd v White City Ltd Partnership [2010] 1 WLR 1181 and Appleby Global Group LLC v BBC [2018] EWHC 104 (Ch), the court must assess appropriateness from both directions, having regard to the overriding objective. Relevant considerations include the issues on which the bulk of the time and resources will be spent, judicial experience and expertise, expedition, cost and fairness. The claimant’s choice is relevant, but there is no presumption that the claim will remain in the chosen Division.
4. The defendant had not produced convincing evidence of greater expertise, earlier listing or greater efficiency in the Media and Communications List. Both venues had an adequate pool of judicial expertise, and the directions and trial estimate would not materially change on transfer. Structural questions concerning allocation of privacy claims were matters for the Civil Procedure Rules Committee and the relevant judicial authorities, not a reason to transfer this individual claim.
5. The application was therefore dismissed. The claim was to proceed in the Business List (ChD), with directions for trial.