Pawel Wysokinski v OCS Security Limited

The appropriate venue for a media and communications claim depends principally on its value, factual and legal complexity, the need for specialist judges, and its public importance. Data protection claims may properly proceed in the County Court where they are straightforward and of modest value.

A procedural defect in making a transfer order does not require appellate intervention if the substantive venue decision was correct. Orders made without a hearing should usually give brief reasons, and reasons should be supplied when requested. The court may reduce costs payable by an unsuccessful party where procedural deficiencies contributed to the appeal and the successful party’s costs are disproportionate.

Pawel Wysokinski issued a data protection and human rights claim as a High Court media and communications claim in the Cardiff District Registry. HHJ Jarman KC transferred it to the County Court without a hearing, without inviting representations and without giving full reasons or notice of the right to seek variation or set-aside.

The appellant challenged the transfer as substantively wrong and procedurally unfair. The respondent accepted that there had been a minor procedural deficiency but maintained that the County Court was the only appropriate venue. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the County Court was the appropriate forum for the claim.

1. Disposition. Lady Justice Yip, with Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Bean V-P agreeing, dismissed the appeal. The procedural defects below did not affect the correctness of the transfer decision.
2. Reasons and procedural fairness. For an order made on the court’s own initiative without a hearing, the reasons required depend on the nature of the decision. The order may need no detailed judgment, but should ordinarily contain brief reasons sufficient to explain its basis and enable an informed decision about applying to set it aside or vary it. Once reasons were requested here, a short explanation should have been given. Failure to include the information required by rule 3.3(5)(b) was an irregularity. The request for reconsideration should have been treated as an application, with time extended for formal representations.
3. Venue. The Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 7A permit media and communications claims to be issued in either court. The choice depends on value, complexity, the availability of specialist judges, and the importance of the outcome to the public. Where a claim is issued in a District Registry, the court must decide whether transfer to the Royal Courts of Justice or the County Court is appropriate. The decision must be made on the information available at that stage; filing Particulars of Claim was not a prerequisite.
4. Application. The court endorsed the observations in Cleary v Marston (Holdings) Ltd [2021] EWHC 3809 (QB); [2022] Costs LR 1451 that County Court judges can deal with data protection claims and that not every such claim is legally complicated. The claim was valued at £15,000 to £30,000, was predominantly for damages, raised straightforward factual and damages issues, and disclosed no significant public importance or need for a High Court judge. The surrounding proceedings did not provide a basis for challenging the fairness of those proceedings in this claim. Transfer to the County Court was therefore inevitable.
5. Costs. Applying the costs discretion, the court ordered the appellant to pay £5,000 inclusive of VAT towards the respondent’s appeal costs. The sum was not to be enforced until conclusion of the underlying claim, save by set-off.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2026] EWCA Civ 26, the appeal was dismissed. The transfer to the County Court was upheld, with a reduced costs contribution ordered.
• High Court, Cardiff District Registry — HHJ Jarman KC ordered transfer of the claim from the Cardiff District Registry to the County Court on 31 December 2024.