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

The High Court must transfer Equality Act 2010 claims falling within the County Court’s exclusive statutory jurisdiction. CPR Part 11 may waive a defendant’s procedural jurisdiction objection, but it cannot confer on the High Court a statutory jurisdiction which Parliament has assigned exclusively to the County Court.

Where proceedings are wrongly issued in the High Court, section 40(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 requires transfer or, in appropriate cases, strike-out; the claim cannot be retained for case management. A split trial is exceptional. It requires a real and substantial advantage over a single trial, assessed pragmatically under the overriding objective. Liability and quantum may properly be separated where the issues, evidence and potential savings justify that course.

The claimants brought High Court proceedings concerning the alleged leaking of a Labour Party report. They advanced claims involving data protection, breach of confidence and vicarious liability, together with claims under Part 7 of the Equality Act 2010. The defendant brought a Part 20 claim against named third parties alleged to have been responsible for the leak.

The court considered whether the Equality Act claims could remain in the High Court for case management, whether the proceedings could be transferred and retransferred to overcome the jurisdictional position, whether the entire litigation should be moved to the County Court, and whether the claim and Part 20 claim should be tried together or in stages.

1. Equality Act jurisdiction. Claims alleging contraventions of Part 7 of the Equality Act 2010 had to be brought and determined in the County Court under sections 113 and 114(1)(d). The High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to retain or determine them.
2. Effect of CPR Part 11. Under CPR Part 11, as explained in Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes, failure to make the prescribed application may treat a defendant as accepting that the court has jurisdiction. That procedural waiver did not override the statutory allocation of jurisdiction or prevent the High Court from acting under section 40(1) of the County Courts Act 1984.
3. Transfer required. Section 40(1), as explained in Restick v Crickmore, required the High Court to transfer or strike out proceedings which an enactment required to be brought in the County Court. Transfer, rather than strike-out, was appropriate. The High Court could not retain the Equality Act claims for case management, constitute itself as a County Court judge, or direct a concurrent High Court and County Court trial.
4. Transfer and retransfer. The proposed transfer to the County Court followed by retransfer to the High Court was impermissible, or in any event inappropriate. It would undermine the exclusive statutory scheme, create difficulties concerning assessors and limitation, and remove the claim from the specialist court selected by Parliament.
5. Case management and trial structure. The entire claim and Part 20 claim were not transferred to the County Court. The court applied CPR 30.3 and the overriding objective, giving weight to value, complexity, public importance, specialist jurisdiction, duplication, delay and inconsistent outcomes. Following Electrical Waste Recycling Group v Philips Electronics and Jinxin v Aser Media, separate determination of the Part 20 liability or leak issue was unjustified. A liability trial followed by a quantum trial was justified because it offered substantial potential savings, limited evidential overlap and settlement opportunities.
6. Orders. The Equality Act claims were transferred to the County Court at Central London. The remaining claims stayed in the High Court. Liability was to be tried first, with quantum to follow if necessary. Costs were ordered partly in the case and partly in favour of the defendant, with costs concerning the third parties reserved as against the claimants.