Wysokinski v OCS Security LTD: Royal Courts of Justice or the County Court- The Appropriate Venue for Data Breach Claims

30 January 2026

Pawel Wysokinski v OCS Security Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 26

The Court of Appeal has ruled unequivocably that the County Court is the appropriate venue for handling uncomplicated data protection claims.

Mr Wysokinski brought a claim for an alleged breach of the Respondent’s statutory obligations under UKGDPR. The Respondent was a provider of court security staff. The Appellant attended court and had an item confiscated from him, but the Appellant contended in the claim that he showed the security guard a medical exemption certificate or prescription relating to the confiscated item. Thereafter the security guard disclosed details of the confiscated item to a court usher and a solicitor acting for a third party. The parties to the appeal engaged in pre-action correspondence where the Respondent conceded a breach of UKGDPR contingent upon the Appellant evidencing his possession of the medical certificate or prescription which he claimed to have shown the security guard.

The appeal’s procedural history was irregular. The Appellant brought the claim as a media and communications claim in the High Court Cardiff District Registry in contravention of CPR r.53.4(1) which requires media and communications claims in the High Court to be brought in the King’s Bench Division of the Royal Courts of Justice and to be clearly marked as for the ‘Media and Communications List’. The CPR makes provision for claims wrongly brought in the District Registry under CPR r.53.4(2), mandating that such claims be transferred to either the County Court or Royal Courts of Justice as appropriate. Without a hearing or notice, the Appellant’s claim was transferred by the Cardiff District Registry to the County Court. The order did not record that any party may apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed as it should have (by virtue of CPR r.3.3(5)(b)). The only information regarding the reason for the transfer was contained in the recitals to the order which made reference to CPR r.53.4(1) and r.53.4(2). The Appellant wrote to the court seeking an explanation for the transfer. The Appellant was thereafter apparently informed by the court that he must apply for the decision to be reconsidered by way of an N244 application form. The Appellant attempted to file such an application, only to be informed that the application had been rejected because it had been filed in the wrong court, the transfer having already taken effect. The Appellant appealed the decision to transfer his claim to the Court of Appeal.

Lady Justice Yip, giving the judgment with which Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Bean agreed, found that it was undesirable that the Appellant’s sole mechanism for challenging the transfer was via appeal to the Court of Appeal and noted a number of opportunities for the Appellant to receive explanations for the transfer and make representations which had been missed by the court. Nonetheless, the underlying issue of whether the transfer was appropriate was simple. There was only one factual dispute in issue concerning the question of whether or not the Appellant held the medical certificate or prescription and the Appellant was put to proof as to the quantum of the claimed damages for distress with pre-action correspondence referring to substantive damages between £15,000-£30,000. Whilst the Appellant contended that the claim was suitable for the High Court, Lady Justice Yip found as follows (at [35 & 38]):

‘It is apparent therefore that the issues likely to arise are straightforward factual issues. Indeed, if the Appellant provides the exemption certificate or prescription as requested, there may well be no dispute about liability. The assessment of damages including the assessment of any distress, anxiety or emotional harm is an entirely straightforward exercise and one conducted in the County Court up and down the country on a daily basis.

[…]

This appeal has afforded the opportunity to consider the parties’ submissions on the appropriate court for this claim and additional material which was not before the judge when he made the decision. Such consideration affirms that the judge’s decision was right. Even had the Appellant been afforded the opportunity to make representations in the court below, it was inevitable that the claim should be transferred to the County Court.’

The Respondent was granted a portion of their costs in meeting the unsuccessful appeal, with the approach to the satisfaction of these costs to be determined at the conclusion of the underlying claim.

Cited with approval in Wysokinski, the judgment in Cleary v Marston (Holdings) Ltd [2021] EWHC 3809 (QB) underlines that there exists a category of non-defamation media and communications claims that should properly be brought in the County Court and claimants and courts should be wary of causes of action which may be appended to claims which add little to the value of the claim but much to the complexity. Cleary and Wysokinski read in conjunction will be useful references for defendants meeting claims of breaches of obligations under UKGDPR where claimants attempt to bring claims in the High Court. Early consideration should be given to invoking these cases and applying to the High Court for early transfer to the County Court, with likely accordant benefits regarding the cost risks of defending such claims.

Alex Ustych of 5 Essex Chambers appeared on behalf of the Respondent.