SK Enterprises (UK) Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This is a judicial determination on the papers, but where it is appropriate to give reasons by way of a short judgment. It addresses the issue of where this claim should be administered and determined.

By a claim issued on 28 November 2024 the Claimant, a limited company operating petrol stations and retail stores under a franchise with the Co-Operative Group, seeks judicial review of the Defendant’s decision dated 28 August 2024 revoking the Claimant’s licence to sponsor workers, obtained under the ‘Skilled Worker’ route.

The Claimant filed the claim in London. In answer to question 4.6 on the claim form, “Have you issued this claim in the region with which you have the closest connection?” the Claimant answered “Yes”. No further reasons were given for wanting the claim to be dealt with in that region.

On 29 November 2024 a minded to transfer order (“MTTO”) was made. This is a mechanism by which the Court invites and considers the views of the parties before any final decision is made to transfer the claim: see the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2024 at paragraph 7.7.5. The MTTO was made by Martin Lee, Administrative Court Lawyer, in the exercise of powers delegated by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division under CPR 54.1A; see also the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2024 at paragraph 13.4.5.10.

The MTTO recorded that Mr Lee was minded to transfer the case to the Administrative Court in the North-Eastern region to be administered and determined at the Leeds Combined Court Centre in light of the following:

“Although the claimant has ticked in section 4, N461 that the claim has been filed in a region with which the claimant has the closest connection that does not appear to be accurate: the claimant is in Leeds and no reasons have been given for filing other than in the NE region. The transfer of the case will ensure efficient use of Court resources and ensure that the London region is not overburdened”.

Mr Lee also cited R (Thakor, aka Parmar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin). There, Fordham J transferred a claim for judicial review relating to decision of the Secretary of State refusing the Claimant’s further asylum and human rights submissions from London to Leeds.

The MTTO gave the parties liberty to indicate opposition to transfer by way of written submissions within 7 days. The parties provided submissions on 5 and 6 December 2024.

CPR PD 54C is intended to facilitate access to justice by enabling cases to be administered and determined in the most appropriate location: paragraph 1.1. It explains that the administration of the Administrative Court is organised by geographical area; and that, in addition to the central Administrative Court Office at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, there are Administrative Court Offices in Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds and Manchester. Claims on the North-Eastern Circuit are administered from (and should be filed in) Leeds and claims on the Northern Circuit are administered from (and should be filed in) Manchester: paragraph 1.2(1).

The Administrative Court applies the principle that “where a claim has a specific connection to a region (by subject matter, location of the claimant or defendant or otherwise) it should, if at all possible, be administered and determined in that region”: paragraph 1.2(2).

PD 54C makes provision for certain “excepted classes of claim” at paragraph 3.1. In all other cases, proceedings should be commenced “at the Administrative Court office for the region with which the claim is most closely connected, having regard to the subject matter of the claim, the location of the claimant, or the defendant, or otherwise”: paragraph 2.1.

Paragraph 2.5 reiterates the “general expectation” that “proceedings will be administered and determined in the region with which the claim has the closest connection”. This will be determined “having regard to the subject matter of the claim, the region in which the claimant resides and the region in which the defendant or any relevant office or department of the defendant is based”. In addition, the court may consider any or all other relevant circumstances including certain listed factors. (Footnote: ¹)

The Claimant has asked that the claim remain in London because both the solicitors and barristers acting for the Claimant are based in London, such that a hearing in London would significantly reduce travel time and associated costs for the legal representatives, ensuring the efficient conduct of the proceedings. Reliance is placed on paragraph 2.5(b) and (i) of PD 54C.

The Defendant has not opposed transfer, indicating that she adopts a neutral position on the issue.

However, the factors set out in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.5 show that the region with which the claim is “most closely connected” is the North-Eastern region.

This is the “region in which the claimant resides” in that the Claimant’s business address as given at section 1 of the claim form is in Leeds. According to the statement of facts and grounds at [4], the Claimant initially operated at two sites known as Orchard and Otley Road and now has three further branches in Cathill, Girlington and Elford Grove. All these locations appear to be within an hour’s drive of Leeds.

The “subject matter of the claim” relates to the Claimant’s staff at the Cathill branch: statement of facts and grounds at [5].

As to the “region in which the defendant or any relevant office or department of the defendant is based”, although the Defendant was served in London, it has offices around the country. The decision under challenge was made by a decision-maker based in Sheffield: see pp.38-52 of the Claimant’s bundle.

Against this starting point is the Claimant’s expressed desire for the claim to remain in London because it has chosen to instruct lawyers in London.

In respect of PD 54C, paragraph 2.5(b), I accept that travel between London and Leeds will be needed if the Claimant retains the same lawyers and there are cost and time implications to consider. However, travel between London and Leeds can be done with ease, and without requiring an overnight stay for a one-day hearing. As the Claimant is based in Leeds their own travel time and costs would be reduced by the claim being heard in Leeds.

Moreover, as Fordham J highlighted in R (Airedale Chemical Company Ltd) v HMRC [2022] EWHC 2937 (Admin) at [3], the parties have “decision-making autonomy” as to which lawyers to instruct. As he said in Thakor at [2], instructing London counsel “ought not…normally ‘drive’ a London choice of venue becoming self-fulfilling”.

The Defendant has not yet instructed counsel: see the Acknowledgment of Service, section 6.

Under paragraph 2.5(c), Leeds has video-link hearing facilities should they be needed.

All these factors point strongly in favour of the claim, if at all possible, being administered and determined in the North-Eastern region and the “general expectation” that that would occur, given the terms of PD 54C, paragraphs 1.2(2) and 2.5.

This is a claim that can be administered and determined in the North-Eastern region. The regional Administrative Court has a team of ticketed specialist judges as well as visiting High Court Judges who sit in the region each court term.

For all these reasons, I have concluded that this claim should be transferred to the North-Eastern region to be administered and determined in Leeds.