Small Claims Court - who decides on the location ?

property.advert

I have a potential small claim (money claim) to make but which court will it take place in ?

I am 300 miles from the potential defendant and clearly that would be onerous to have to travel.

Equally, if the claim was made near my home, wouldn't that make it somewhat unfair for the defendant having to travel the same 300 miles ?

Who decides and is there an appeal process to change location ?

LordSmug

property.advert wrote: »

I have a potential small claim (money claim) to make but which court will it take place in ?

I am 300 miles from the potential defendant and clearly that would be onerous to have to travel.

Equally, if the claim was made near my home, wouldn't that make it somewhat unfair for the defendant having to travel the same 300 miles ?

Who decides and is there an appeal process to change location ?

Ultimately, the court decides,

Original protocol was that the usual court would be that convenient to the defendant.

But latterly it depends on who the complainant and defendant are.
If the complainant is a consumer, and the defendant a business, then the hearing is usually at the complainant's local court.

Both parties are at liberty to make their own submissions to the court, but as I said, ultimately the decision is up to the court. I have never heard of, nor can I currently think of any valid grounds, to appeal the court's direction on where a hearing should take place.

Other matters the court considers before making a decision include responses given in the respective parties Directions Questionnaires, the value of the claim, the financial circumstances of the parties, the availability of judge and court time, if one of the parties (including their witnesses) has a disability, etc.

In any event, reasonable travel expenses are usually awarded to the winning side.

Edit:
As you say you are 300 miles apart, I trust one party is not in Scotland and the other not, as that could have other legal reasons as to which is the appropriate court.

waamo

If you are sueing a business then the business has to travel.

Wiseguy

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part26#26.2A

CPR 26.2A praragraph (3) confirms if the defendant is an individual and the claim is for a specified amount of money then it must be transferred to the defendant's local court regardless, though you could make an application to transfer that's going to be difficult if the defendant satisfies this criteria.

If the defendant is a business then you could point out in the Directions Questionnaire that there is no automatic transfer and ask the court to consider transferring the case to your local court pursuant to CPR 30.3 - https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part30#30.3

In the Form N180 question D1 you can ask the court to consider a transfer under CPR 30.3 because the defendant is not an individual. Then list appropriate factors such as, the Defendant is a large corporate, the sum involved is relatively small, the cost of travel is disproportionate to the claim which the defendant being a business should bear. Alternatively if the court doesn't agree to a transfer to your local court, you can always tag on the end a request to send the case to a court equidistant to the parties and name that court you'd be prepared to travel to.

It doesn't always work but have had relatively good success myself using this line of argument. Lordsmug has correctly pointed out, however, that the rules provide for travel expenses albeit they are capped.

I also recall coming acrossg some case law on the matter of transfer of proceedings and the general observations from judges conclude that because it is the claimant who commences legal proceedings, the defendant should normally have the benefit of the case being heard locally. It would be unreasonable to expect a defendant to incur further costs travel to the claimant's local court, rather the claimant should be expected to travel to prove their case.