Chern v Apiloa Corporation & Anor

Low-value construction claims should generally be commenced in the County Court or another suitable TCC centre. A claim may nevertheless be appropriate for the High Court where it concerns adjudication enforcement, arbitration, or matters that cannot be dealt with effectively by a designated TCC judge. The fact that a dispute concerns an adjudicator’s fees, involves sensitive issues, or requires assessment of substantial underlying material does not by itself justify transfer. Specialist Circuit Judges are capable of determining the reasonableness of adjudicators’ fees, the work undertaken, and the accuracy of time records. The appropriate forum depends on the substance and practical complexity of the claim, not merely the professional status of the parties or the value of the underlying adjudication.

Dr Cyril Chern brought proceedings against Apiloa Corporation and AR Architecture Ltd for approximately £41,000 in unpaid adjudication fees. The total fees in issue were said to be approximately £168,000. The claim concerned the reasonableness of the fees, the time allegedly spent, the work undertaken, and matters relating to payments on account and communications with the adjudication parties.

AR Architecture applied to transfer the proceedings from the Central London County Court to the High Court’s Technology and Construction Court. It relied on the value and sensitivity of the issues, the complexity of the underlying adjudication, and guidance concerning low-value TCC claims. The central issue was whether the nature of the claim required determination by a full High Court judge.

1. The transfer application was dismissed. The claim remained in the TCC list at the Central London County Court and was capable of disposal after a two-day trial.
2. The guidance in West Country Renovations v McDowell [2012] EWHC 307 (TCC) indicated that claims below £250,000 should generally be commenced in the County Court or another suitable TCC centre. Exceptions included adjudication enforcement and arbitration claims, irrespective of financial value, and claims that could not effectively be dealt with by a County Court or Civil Justice Centre with a designated TCC judge.
3. The adjudication-related exception did not require transfer of every claim connected with an adjudication. An adjudicator’s fee claim was materially different from adjudication enforcement. The fact that the underlying adjudication involved substantial documentation or that the fee dispute was sensitive did not itself justify High Court allocation.
4. The essential issues were straightforward: whether the level of fees was reasonable, whether the time claimed was actually spent, and what work was undertaken in reading and considering the adjudication material. A Specialist Circuit Judge was well placed to determine those issues.
5. The court rejected the submission that the nature of the issues required a full High Court judge. The proceedings therefore remained in the Central London County Court’s TCC list.