Claimant solicitors have been admonished for issuing a case in London’s High Court rather than its ‘natural home’.

In Jennings v Otis Ltd & Anor Mr Justice Cotter said that it was ‘common sense’ to issue in Bristol the claim for an accident that occurred in Bristol – particularly as both sides agreed that any future trial should be held in the city.

The judge noted that the incident happened less than 10 minutes’ walk from Bristol Civil Justice Centre and involved a claimant from Bristol issuing proceedings in part against Bristol City Council. The claimant’s solicitors, national firm Thompsons, was itself located on the walk from the accident site to the court.

The court had heard it was Thompsons’ policy to issue personal injury High Court claims in London notwithstanding any proximity between the accident site and the location of the local justice centre.

The judge said the firm was ‘not alone’ in this regard but he made it clear that this practice should not be widely accepted.

‘I do not accept that a policy of issuing all High Court personal injury (and /or clinical negligence claims) in the Royal Courts of Justice is sensible, complies with the overriding objective or serves the interest of any party,’ he said. ‘Any solicitor issuing a claim should make a case specific assessment of the suitable place to issue. In the present case issuing in London has caused significant delay and I have no doubt extra costs. It also served to hamper effective case and costs management.’

The claimant’s representatives had sought to argue that judges in London had more relevant expertise in personal injury or clinical negligence claims than those in the regions. It was also put forward that issuing in London achieved greater continuity if the case went to trial in the capital.

Cotter said these arguments ‘belong in the past’ and pointed out that all the main regional centres have designated civil judges and visiting High Court judges who can hear trials. For case management purposes, these judges would be more able to visit accident scenes if necessary and have knowledge of other matters which may be relevant to costs budgeting.

Cotter added: ‘Finally, but by no means an unimportant consideration, the need to attend a trial in London also often, if not usually, increases stress and inconvenience for parties and witnesses (in some clinical negligence cases impacting on the ability of clinicians to do other work within a day) and increases costs.’

The underlying case was an appeal against case management orders made by Master Thornett in an employer liability case in which the claimant lost an arm at work.

Thornett had described the claimant’s response to a request for details about pleadings as ‘entirely useless’ and concluded that the defendants remained in the dark about what was being said to have happened. The master ordered a further reply to the existing Part 18 request and unilateral service of the claimant’s witness statements.

Rejecting the appeal, Cotter said there was nothing wrong with ensuring the claimant’s case was made clear before matters progressed further.

‘Even when it is thought that a judge at a case management hearing has exceeded the generous discretion afforded to him/her the aggrieved party should stake careful stock and carefully assess whether an appeal is worth the candle,’ he added.

 

This article is now closed for comment.