Denny Taylor & Ors v David Evans (as representative of the Labour Party)

The Master determined a procedural dispute about jurisdiction and case management in a multi‑party action arising from the unauthorised leak of a Labour Party draft Report. The court held that claims brought under Part 7/Part 9 of the Equality Act 2010 fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the County Court (sections 113 and 114) and must be transferred under section 40 of the County Courts Act 1984 rather than retained in the High Court. CPR Part 11 (and the authority in Hoddinott) creates a statutory procedural waiver if not followed, but it does not permit the High Court to override an express statutory allocation of jurisdiction.

On case management the Master refused proposals to (a) retain the Equality Act claim for High Court case management, (b) constitute himself to sit as a County Court judge to manage the claim, and (c) use a section 40/section 41 transfer route to vest the High Court with County Court jurisdiction over Equality Act claims. He directed that the Equality Act element be transferred to the County Court (Central London) and that the High Court continue to case manage the remaining High Court causes of action. The Master declined to order a separate preliminary trial of Part 20 liability (who leaked the Report) but ordered a split between liability and quantum for the High Court trial phase. Costs directions were given: generally costs in the case for the High Court matters, with a specified and complex apportionment of costs in relation to the Equality Act arguments (including a 35%/65% split as to some hearings) and preservation of third parties’ costs rights.

Background and parties:

• The claim arises from a leaked draft internal Labour Party Report prepared in the context of an EHRC investigation into alleged anti‑Semitism. Claimants sued Mr Evans (as representative of the Labour Party) alleging breaches of data protection duties, breach of confidence (including Human Rights Act aspects), vicarious liability for the leak and, separately, discrimination/harassment under the Equality Act 2010 (Part 7 relating to associations).
• The defendant brought a Part 20 claim against five named third parties (former officers/employees) seeking indemnity and damages if they were the leakers; the defendants pleaded the leak was the work of those third parties and said they acted in a conspiracy to undermine the party leadership.

Nature of the application / relief sought:

• No formal jurisdiction application had been brought under CPR Part 11 by the defendant; the court raised, of its own motion, whether the Equality Act claims must be transferred to the County Court and what case management directions should apply to the remaining High Court claims and the Part 20 claim.

Issues framed:

• Whether Equality Act 2010 claims must be tried in the County Court (ss 113–114).
• Whether CPR Part 11 waiver prevented the defendant from making the jurisdictional point.
• Whether the High Court could retain and case manage the Equality Act elements, or a judge could sit as both a County Court and High Court judge to try all issues together (including by transfer back under s 41).
• How to sequence trial issues between the main claim and the Part 20 proceedings (single trial, staged trials, or preliminary issues) and the appropriate approach to costs budgeting and costs orders.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• The court accepted that CPR Part 11 (and Hoddinott) operates as a waiver where a defendant fails to follow its procedure; that point is material to costs. However, that procedural waiver does not enable the High Court to ignore express statutory allocation of jurisdiction in the Equality Act 2010. Sections 113 and 114 give exclusive jurisdiction to the County Court for the kinds of Equality Act claims pleaded and, under s 40 of the County Courts Act 1984 and the authorities (notably Restick v Crickmore), the High Court must either transfer or strike out such claims; retention for case management was improper.
• The Master rejected the claimants’ proposals that the Equality Act claim remain in the High Court for pre‑trial management, that he should sit as a County Court judge to manage it, or that the claim be transferred to the County Court and then retransferred to the High Court under s 41 to confer jurisdiction. Those courses would frustrate the statutory scheme, interfere with allocation decisions for County Court judges and the designated civil judge, and raise difficult issues as to assessors, time limits and other statutory mechanisms in Part 9 of the Equality Act.
• The court therefore ordered transfer of the Equality Act element to the County Court at Central London, allowed use of High Court disclosure material in the County Court proceedings, and invited the parties and the County Court to consider whether a single judge might hear both sets of claims (but declined to direct that itself).
• On sequencing, the Master refused to order a separate Part 20 liability trial (or a stand‑alone preliminary issue as to who leaked the Report) because that course risked artificiality, duplication, inconsistent findings and practical difficulties; instead he ordered a split between liability and quantum for the High Court trial phase (liability to be tried first for the High Court matters), with cost budgeting directed for the liability phase only.
• The Master made detailed costs directions: generally costs in the case for High Court matters (except the Equality Act aspects) and a tailored apportionment for the Equality Act hearings (defendant’s costs in the case for November hearing; for June hearings 35% defendant’s costs in any event and 65% defendant’s costs in the case; third parties’ costs in the case as between them and the defendant and reserved as between them and the claimants).
• Finally the judgment records that, subsequently, the claim was compromised and the earlier order for a split trial was set aside in favour of a single trial of liability and quantum in the Part 20 claim (note recorded in the transcript).

First instance: The Master ordered that the Equality Act 2010 claims (Part 7 / Part 9 issues) be transferred from the High Court to the County Court (Central London) under section 40 of the County Courts Act 1984 because the County Court has exclusive jurisdiction under sections 113 and 114 of the Equality Act 2010. The High Court could not retain those claims for case management or effect a transfer route that would override the statutory allocation. The Master refused separate preliminary trials of Part 20 liability (who leaked the Report) but directed a split between liability and quantum for the remaining High Court trial phase. Detailed, case‑specific costs apportionments were made in relation to the Equality Act hearings. The reasons combined statutory construction (Equality Act and County Courts Act), application of CPR case management rules, and considerations of proportionality and practicality under the overriding objective.