[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Corby Group Litigation v Corby Borough Council [2007] EWHC 3174 (TCC) (23 November 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3174.html Cite as: [2007] EWHC 3174 (TCC)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONTRUCTION COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		23rd November 2007

MR. JUSTICE RAMSEY:

1. This is an application for the transfer to the TCC from the Queen's Bench Division of proceedings referred to as the Corby Group Litigation. This is litigation commenced by a number of claimants against Corby Borough Council and it is proceeding in the Queen's Bench Division under a GLO made on 14^th February 2006 as approved by Sir Igor Judge as the President of the Queen's Bench Division.
2. The background to these proceedings is that there was formerly a British Steel ironworks quarry at Corby. In the early 1980s the defendant local authority became responsible for approving and authorising the reclamation and de-contamination of toxic waste at various sites which made up the former steel works complex.
3. The claims which are made are claims for damages for personal injury on behalf of infant children born between about 1985 to 1999 with serious upper or lower limb deformities. The contention is that the mothers, who worked and lived close to the site, were exposed during the embryonic stage of pregnancy to toxic waste arising from the reclamation and de-contamination programme and this caused the deformities.
4. The case therefore involves, essentially, two groups of issues. The first is a set of issues dealing with the allegations of negligence, breach of statutory duty and, subject to an appeal concerning an amendment, public nuisance which concern the defendant's involvement in the reclamation process. The second group of issues concern foreseeability and causation of personal injury as a result of the actions of the reclamation and decontamination works.
5. In summary, it is said on behalf of the claimants that this is a case which comes within the examples which are given in Part 60 of cases which are matters which can be dealt with in the TCC.
6. The test is whether the claims involve issues or questions which are, technically, complex or where a trial by a TCC judge is desirable. There is no doubt in this case that under Practice Direction 60, paragraph 2.1(d) these are claims against a local authority relating to their statutory duties concerning the development of land. They are concerned with the environment, so they are claims under paragraph 2.1(i) relating to the environment, particularly pollution cases. Therefore, there are issues which are, clearly, in my view, within the types of claim which come within the TCC jurisdiction.
7. The main question is whether because they are personal injury claims arising from those TCC matters they are more conveniently dealt with in the Queen's Bench Division rather than being transferred to a TCC judge.
8. In this case, it seems to me that there are the following considerations. First, the judges of the TCC, who now include High Court Judges, are Queen's Bench Judges and sit for part of their time hearing general cases, including personal injury cases. As part of the change in the TCC to a High Court jurisdiction with High Court Judges there is no longer the same distinction between a Queen's Bench Judge and a TCC Queen's Bench Judge.
9. The second matter is that in proceedings under a group litigation order there is a need for a managing judge who, under paragraph 8 of the practice direction, will be appointed as soon as possible. The TCC has, for many years, been in the forefront of case management carried out by judges. In this case, sensibly, the matter has been the subject of case management by Master Leslie and all the parties before me have indicated their indebtedness to him for his excellent case management, which I can see reflected in the orders.
10. The third matter is that there is, in this case the need for expert evidence in four fields. Those fields are management of waste disposal programmes, toxicology, epidemiology and air pollution science and safety risk management. It seems to me that the proper conduct of expert evidence, particularly in management and waste disposal programmes and in air pollution science and safety risk management, is something which is commonly dealt with in these courts as, indeed, is toxicology.
11. In those circumstances, I consider that the convenient way of dealing with this matter is, as sought by the application, for these proceedings to be transferred to the TCC because this Court can provide judges with a wider remit; this is a case where there are TCC issues and it allows a judge to be appointed now to continue the case management carried out by Master Leslie. This is also a case where, from now onwards, matters of expert evidence will particularly be the subject of case management directions which the judges of this Court have great experience in dealing with.
12. Therefore I order that, subject to the consent of Sir Igor Judge, as the President of the Queen's Bench Division, this matter should be transferred to the TCC.