Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 72 (Jul)
Neutral Citation: [2008] EWHC 1508 (TCC)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court (Bristol District Registry)
Judge:

Ramsey J

Representation Neil Levy (instructed by M & A Solicitors) for the claimant.
  Sean Brannigan (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna) for the defendants.
Judgment Dates: 16 June 2008

Catchwords

Practice - Technology and Construction Court - Transfer of cases to London from Regional Centres - Classification of case for trial by High Court judge - Relevant considerations - CPR 30.2(4) - Technology and Construction Court Guide, para 3.7.2.

The Case

Practice Technology and Construction Court. Generally, on an application for the transfer of proceedings in the Technology and Construction Court to or from a Regional Centre under CPR30.2(4) where there is a TCC judge at a Regional Centre which was convenient to the parties or which, on the balance of convenience, was the appropriate place for the management and trial of the case to take place, the case should remain at that Centre rather than be transferred to London. When a TCC case at a Regional Centre merited case management or trial by a High Court judge, it would generally be more appropriate for a High Court judge to case manage or try that case at a regional centre rather than for a case to be transferred to London. It was quite clearly no longer the case that a case had to be transferred to London for it to be tried by a High Court TCC judge rather than a senior circuit Judge. The question of whether a case was to be assigned to a High Court judge or to a senior circuit judge depended on whether the case merited management and trial by a High Court judge and the same matters, set out in para3.7.2 of the Technology and Construction Court Guide, had to be considered. If the matter was appropriate to be managed and tried by a High Court judge, either in London or in a Regional Centre, then it should be managed and tried by a High Court judge wherever it was issued.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.