Wysokinski v OCS Security Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant appealed a decision of Judge Jarman (sitting in the High Court at the District Registry) to transfer a data protection and human rights claim from the High Court District Registry to the County Court. The claim form had been issued as a High Court media and communications claim on 16 December 2024 but did not comply with CPR r.53.4(1) (which requires such claims issued in the High Court to be issued at the Royal Courts of Justice and marked "Media and Communications List"). CPR r.53.4(2) requires that a media and communications claim erroneously issued in a District Registry be transferred either to the County Court or to the Royal Courts of Justice.

On 31 December 2024, without a hearing or inviting representations, Judge Jarman ordered transfer to the County Court. The order, sealed on 2 January 2025 and served the same day, did not state that affected parties may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed pursuant to CPR 3.3(5)(b). The recitals noted non-compliance with CPR 53.4(1) and that the order was made under CPR 53.4(2), but gave no further reasons for preferring the County Court over the Royal Courts of Justice.

The Appellant requested reconsideration on 9 January 2025, seeking reasons and reserving the right to apply to set aside, vary or stay the order. The court indicated the Appellant should file a N244 application (no record was produced). An attempt to file such an application in the High Court on 15 January 2025 was rejected as filed in the wrong court after the transfer had taken effect. The Appellant filed an Appellant's Notice on 21 January 2025; permission to appeal was granted by Judge Warby, who also permitted the Respondent to rely on additional material not before Judge Jarman (including pre-action letters).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the County Court was the appropriate forum for the claim (i.e., whether the claim should have been transferred to the County Court rather than the Royal Courts of Justice).
2. Whether the transfer decision was procedurally fair, specifically whether adequate reasons were given and whether the Appellant should have been afforded an opportunity to make representations before transfer.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The transfer was substantively wrong because the nature and complexity of the claim warranted determination in the High Court.
• The judge failed to give adequate reasons for preferring the County Court.
• There was a breach of procedural fairness because the Appellant was not given an opportunity to make representations before transfer; the order was made too early, before Particulars of Claim were filed.

Respondent's Arguments

• Any procedural deficiency was minor; notwithstanding that, transfer to the County Court was the only appropriate outcome on the available material.
• The substantive question of venue was decisive and the County Court was suitable for the claim.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed three strands: (i) the adequacy of reasons and procedural fairness; (ii) the applicable procedural and practice directions governing media and communications claims; and (iii) whether, on the material before Judge Jarman, the County Court was the appropriate forum.

On reasons and procedure, the court noted that orders made on the court's initiative without a hearing will often require brief reasons to permit informed decisions about applying to set aside or vary. Judge Jarman's order recited non-compliance with CPR 53.4(1) and invoked CPR 53.4(2) but gave no explanation for preferring the County Court over the Royal Courts of Justice and failed to record the CPR 3.3(5)(b) information about applying to set aside or vary. The failure to treat the Appellant's timely request for reconsideration as an application under CPR 3.3(5)(a) was a procedural irregularity; the better course would have been to provide brief reasons and allow representations or a short extension to make a formal application.

On substantive venue analysis, the court applied CPR Part 53 and Practice Direction 7A: media and communications claims (including data protection) may be started in the High Court or County Court; paragraph PD 7A 2.10(2) identifies factors (value, complexity, importance to the public) that justify High Court commencement. CPR 30.3(2) provides factors for transfer decisions (value, specialist judges, complexity, public importance).

Examining the claim form as issued, the court found the claim alleged a straightforward data protection breach arising from a security guard's confiscation of an item and subsequent disclosure of details to third parties, with alleged breaches of the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 and Articles 6 and 8. The claimed value was between £15,000 and £30,000 (with nominal damages also said to be appropriate). The claim form contained limited factual and legal complexity and sought predominantly damages. On that material, the judge was entitled to treat the claim as relatively straightforward and to conclude the County Court was the appropriate forum.

The appellate court considered additional material placed before it (pre-action correspondence) showing the Respondent admitted liability subject to proof of an exemption certificate or prescription, contended damages would be nominal, and had taken corrective measures. That material reinforced that liability was likely to be straightforward and that assessment of damages was ordinary County Court work. The court therefore concluded that even had representations been received below, transfer to the County Court would have been inevitable.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED. The appeal is dismissed. The appellate court held that, notwithstanding procedural deficiencies below (absence of brief reasons and omission of CPR 3.3(5)(b) information), the decision to transfer the claim to the County Court was correct on the material available and on material subsequently placed before the court.

Consequences for the parties: the Appellant must pay a contribution of £5,000 (inclusive of VAT) towards the Respondent's costs of the appeal, not to be enforced until the conclusion of the underlying claim except by way of set-off. The court exercised discretion under CPR 44 and balanced the procedural deficiencies against the inevitability of transfer; no broader legal novelty or new binding precedent was established—the decision determined the appropriate forum for this claim and resolved costs between the parties.