§ Where there has been commenced in the county court an action founded on tort, the plaintiff may at any time give notice that he desires to transfer the action to the High Court on the ground that there is reasonable cause, at the time of giving such notice, to believe that the plaintiff's damages might exceed the sum of four hundred pounds, and the judge, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such belief, shall transfer the said action to the High Court without making any order as to the costs of the action which will be subject to such order of the High Court as to a judge of the High Court or master in chambers seems just.—[Mr. Hale.]
§ Brought up and read the First time.
§ Mr. HaleI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause deals with quite simple case. I know there are transfers from the High Court to the county court, but they do not cover the position.
The whole purpose of Clause 1, as explained by the Attorney-General, is to compel litigants with comparatively small claims to bring them in the county court and not in the High Court. A great deal of pressure is put on them by way of deprivation of costs to commence their cases in the county court. Then a medical man involved in the case comes along and says, "I thought this was a comparatively simple case, but it now appears to be one of much greater seriousness." Earlier in the debate today, I mentioned a case of neurasthenia. A doctor may say, "This is a perfectly normal case, but I am giving the patient sleeping draughts." It often means very wise and patient treatment to get cases of this sort disposed of as quickly as possible, because the worry of the case very often affects a patient's condition.
Suppose a summons is issued in the county court. Weeks go by. A doctor 1081 says, "I am sorry, but my patient is getting worse and I am not sure that she will recover. She may finish up in a mental hospital." These are not fanciful cases, but are part of the experience met with in every county court. We all know the case of the man who has had a severe shock. He may have been thrown over the handlebars of his motor-cycle and have what appears to be a slight fracture of the skull. An action is begun in the county court. Then the injured man's sight begins to fail, a development which may result in total blindness.
In all such cases there should be a simple and clear method of transferring the matter 10 the High Court. [Interruption.] The Solicitor-General says that there is. I listened with very great respect to what he had to say. The purpose of the Clause is simply to say that at any stage in the proceedings—and I think that that is important; someone may be in the witness box and then it is suddenly found that facts are coming out which are relevant—the applicant can apply for transfer to the High Court. If that is done, then, in my view, the whole question of costs should be left until the final hearing, and whether it is settled in the High Court, or by a judge or master in chambers should be left to the discretion of the judge who tried the matter.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralWe cannot accept the new Clause because, as the Committee would agree, the matter would have to be considered in the presence of the other party, and the Clause does not provide for notice to the other party. For instance, there would have to be notice to the defendant. Certainly, between now and Report we will look at this with care. I quite understand the kind of case which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has been presenting, but when I tried to indicate by a head gesture that the matter was already covered I meant that I should indicate what is in our minds.
Supposing that the action is started in the county court and then, for some reason, as it goes along it appears that the claim should be above the county court jurisdiction, the claim can be amended. If one has not got to the hearing that can be done without leave of the judge, but leave of the judge is 1082 needed at the hearing. If one amends, one amends in such terms as, in our belief, bring one within Section 64 of the principal Act, and the judge can then transfer the case to the High Court.
So that I should not make a false point, I should mention that there is a proviso to that Section in the principal Act which means, in effect, that if the court did not think fit it would not have to transfer the proceedings. It is worth considering whether or not that should be retained, but advocates like the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and myself will know of those painful occasions when, owing to some observations by the tribunal, one begins to suspect that one is not going to succeed on liability. Without such a proviso it may be that there is some danger of abuse in the scheme by means of amendments where the prospects of liability do not look so good in the inferior tribunal.
I suggest that such matters are worth looking into. If this matter is already covered I know that hon. Members would not wish to multiply provisions. We will look at this between now and Report to see that it is covered.
§ Sir L. Ungoed-ThomasWe are not in the least concerned with drafting points here, and we fully appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about notice to the defendant, but we do—let us have no mistake about it—attach tremendous importance to the principle of this new Clause. I hope that that is clearly understood between us.
On the other hand, I fully appreciate what the Solicitor-General has said about these other provisions and we shall, of course, have to look at them carefully in the light of what he has said. On that footing I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) would not wish to press this Clause to a Division. When we come to the Report stage, we shall certainly require to be satisfied that the principle embodied in this new Clause is met in one way or another.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.