Something had gone ‘badly amiss’ for a six-figure claim over an accident in Wales to be litigated in London's Royal Courts of Justice, a judge has said. 

Ruling at the conclusiuon of a five-day hearing in Boyd v Hughes, Mr Justice Cotter said that both the venue and the level of judge had been wrong for the personal injury claim subject to a limitation of £100,000.

The claimant had broken her elbow when she fell from a horse at stables just outside of Cardiff. But despite both parties and their witnesses all living close to Cardiff, and six of the liability authorities cited having been tried by county court judges, the claim was issued at the RCJ in London.

The judge concluded: ‘The result of this case progressing as full trial of all issues in the Royal Courts of Justice has been wasted costs, disproportionate use of High Court judge and court resources and an inability for witnesses to easily attend trial.’

Claimant lawyers from national firm RWK Goodman had told the court that the quality of the judiciary and case management at the RCJ, including trial listing and facilities for remote evidence, benefited the administration of justice. In comparison, the administration of a case in the county court was ‘comparatively woeful’, they argued. London seemed the most appropriate forum as it was closer for the experts and lawyers – none of who were based in Wales, they argued. 

Read more

Defendant firm Kennedys explained that it became apparent only under cross-examination that the value of the claim had decreased and that the claim could have been dealt with in the county court.

The judge said the lawyers’ reasoning had been wrong and had led to the case not proceeding in line with the overriding objective. He added: ‘Sadly some of this reasoning still regularly underpins the approach of some legal representatives in personal injury and medical negligence cases.’ The judge said cases involving sums less than £500,000 with a range of causes are routinely heard in the county court. Even if issuing in the High Court had been justified, he said that the claim should have been issued in Cardiff District Registry.

‘The claimant’s solicitor seems never to have considered the prospect of issue in the local district registry,’ the judge said. ‘I reject without hesitation the suggestion that compared to the Royal Courts of Justice the administration of a multi-track claim in the county court or a regional High Court centre (the staff and judges usually being the same) is “comparatively woeful”.’

On the issue of instructing London-based lawyers, the judge said litigants were entitled to choose whom they wanted, but the question of why local solicitors were not instructed would be relevant in the context of recovery of costs.

The ruling was also notable for a failed attempt to bring a fundamental dishonesty defence, despite the judge finding that the claimant deliberately exaggerated/overplayed her symptoms. While there had been ‘dishonest embellishment in an attempt to underpin an essentially honest claim’,  this exaggeration was not sufficiently significant to go to the root or heart of the claim.

The judge added: ‘The claimant should consider herself fortunate that her conscious exaggeration has not had devastating consequences.’