Gary Parkin, R (on the application of) v Rotherham Doncaster and South Humberside NHS Foundation Trust

This is a judicial determination on the papers, but where it is, in my judgment, appropriate to give reasons by way of a short judgment. This is a claim for judicial review in which a minded to transfer order (“MTTO”) to the Administrative Court in Leeds (the North-Eastern region) was made on 18 May 2023. The Claimant, who acts in person, had filed the claim in the Administrative Court in London (the South-East region) and answered “yes” to the question in Claim Form N461: “Have you issued this claim in the region with which the claim is most closely connected?”The MTTO gave reasons for a transfer to Leeds and gave the parties 7 days to file representations objecting to that course. The Defendant has filed no objections to the transfer.

The Claimant’s objections to the transfer no longer maintain that the South-East is the region with which the claim is most closely connected. He is right not to have maintained that position. By his Claim Form the Claimant (who lives in Doncaster) seeks to challenge the decision of the Defendant about disability access to Tickhill Hospital (in Doncaster). The Claimant’s objections now say that London is “a more experienced court” with “more resources” and which “is easier to get to”. But I am entirely satisfied that this case belongs in Leeds. The North East is the region with which the claim is most closely connected. The Administrative Court in Leeds has the experience and resources to deal with the claim. Leeds is also accessible (30 mins direct by train) from Doncaster. There is no good or convincing reason where the case should not be dealt with in Leeds. On that basis, I have made the transfer order.