At the heart of the appeal in Pawel Wysokinski v OCS Security Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 26 lay a single issue: is the county court the appropriate venue for a data protection claim? The claim concerned an alleged data protection breach arising from a court security guard’s confiscation of the claimant’s medical device and the unauthorised disclosure of sensitive medical information.
Relevant rules
Part 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs media and communications claims, including data protection. These claims may be issued in either the High Court or county court, with the appropriate forum determined by factors such as value, complexity, specialist judicial expertise and public importance.
If a claim is issued in the wrong court, the court must decide whether to transfer it to the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) or the county court (CPR Part 30). A straightforward and low-value data protection claim is suitable for the county court, whose judges are well equipped to deal with such cases, and claimants should avoid unnecessary complexity and cost (Cleary v Marston (Holdings) Ltd [2021] EWHC 3809 (QB)).
CPR 53.4(1) provides that: ‘A media and communications claim that is issued in the High Court must be issued in the King’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, and marked in the top left corner “Media and Communications List”.’ CPR 53.4(2) provides: ‘A media and communications claim that is issued in a District Registry of the High Court must be transferred either to the county court or to the Royal Courts of Justice (as appropriate).’
In Pawel Wysokinski, the claim form was issued as a High Court media and communications claim in the Cardiff District Registry. This contravened CPR 53.4(1). The judge was therefore required to consider whether to transfer the claim to the RCJ or to the county court.
Without a hearing and without inviting representations, the judge ordered the transfer of the claim to the county court. The order was sealed and served on the claimant (appellant) by email that day. The order did not record that any party affected by the order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed as it should have done pursuant to CPR 3.3(5)(b). In the recitals to the order, the judge recorded that the claim form did not comply with CPR 53.4(1) and that the court was making the order under CPR 53.4(2).
No further reasons were given for the decision to transfer to the county court. The claimant wrote to the court seeking an explanation for the transfer. He was informed that any challenge required an application under form N244. His application was rejected because it had been filed in the wrong court and the transfer had already taken effect. The claimant then appealed the transfer decision to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
- Substantive error: The decision to transfer to the county court was wrong because the nature and complexity of the claim justified its transfer to the High Court.
- Lack of reasons: The judge failed to explain why the county court was considered the appropriate court.
- Breach of procedural fairness: The judge should have given the claimant an opportunity to make representations about the transfer.
Court of Appeal’s decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal. It held that the need to give reasons for an order made without a hearing depends on the nature of the decision, although it is usually appropriate to provide brief reasons to enable the parties to understand the basis of the order and decide whether to seek reconsideration. While the recitals arguably gave minimal reasoning by indicating non-compliance with CPR 53.4(1) and reliance on CPR 53.4(2), from which it could be inferred that the judge considered the county court the appropriate forum, a short explanation should nevertheless have been provided once the appellant requested reasons.
The Court of Appeal also held that the failure to include the information required by CPR 3.3(5)(b) was a procedural irregularity, and although the appellant promptly sought reconsideration within the time limit, his request was not treated as an application nor referred to the judge, who should have provided brief reasons and extended time for a formal application.
In the absence of reasons and guidance on the right to apply, the better course would have been to accept the appellant’s application and allow representations, avoiding an unnecessary appeal. However, these procedural defects did not determine the outcome, as the central issue remains whether the county court was the appropriate venue.
The Court of Appeal found that, on the face of the claim form, the issues were straightforward, the value was modest, and no legal or factual complexity or public importance was apparent, which made the county court the appropriate forum. It also noted that subsequent material confirmed that liability was largely admitted and that the remaining issues concerned routine factual matters and assessment of damages. The Court of Appeal found the claimant’s arguments on the complex nature of the legal issues were unfounded.
The decision in Pawel Wysokinski highlights a simple but important point for practitioners: the choice of forum should be guided by the nature of the claim, its value, and the complexity of the issues, rather than the subject matter alone. Adopting this approach can avoid the parties engaging in costly satellite litigation and is consistent with the parties’ obligations in helping the court to further the overriding objective (CPR 1.3).
Masood Ahmed is an associate professor of law at the University of Leicester and co-author of Arbitration of Commercial Disputes: English and International Law and Practice (Oxford University Press 2025)
No comments yet