AXN, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Venue Determination)

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 5 December 2024 the Claimant seeks judicial review of the Defendant’s decision dated 4September 2024 to refuse the Claimant’s re-entry into Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract (“MSVCC”) support.

The Claimant filed the claim in the South Eastern Region. 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.

On 6December 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 finalised decision 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 the Administrative Court Lawyer was minded to transfer the case to the North Eastern Region in light of the following:

“Although the claimant has ticked in section 4, N461 that the claim has been filed in the region with which the claim has the closest connection that does not appear to be accurate: the claimant is in Leeds. There is no explanation given for filing in London. Efficient use of court resources means that the regional courts should be used and over-burdening of the London court avoided. R (Thakor / Parmer) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin)”.

The MTTO gave the parties liberty to indicate opposition to transfer by way of written submissions within 7 days. The Claimant provided submissions on 11 December 2024. The Defendant and Interested Party have not provided submissions.

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 the following:

“(a)

any reason expressed by any party for preferring a particular venue;

(b)

the ease and cost of travel to a hearing;

(c)

the availability and suitability of alternative means of attending a hearing (for example, by video-link);

(d)

the extent and nature of any public interest that the proceedings be heard in any particular locality;

(e)

the time within which it is appropriate for the proceedings to be determined;

(f)

whether it is desirable to administer or determine the claim in another region in the light of the volume of claims issued at, and the capacity, resources and workload of, the court at which it is issued;

(g)

whether the claim raises issues sufficiently similar to those in another outstanding claim to make it desirable that it should be determined together with, or immediately following, that other claim;

(h)

whether the claim raises devolution issues and for that reason whether it should more appropriately be determined in London or Cardiff; and

(i)

the region in which the legal representative[s] of the parties are based”.

The Claimant has contended that the claim should remain in London.

It is necessary to determine the region with which the claim is “most closely connected” by reference to the factors set out in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.5.

The “region in which the claimant resides” is the Leeds or North Eastern region.

The “subject matter of the claim” is the nature of the support being provided to the Claimant. However this is determined by national policy and guidance.

As to the “region in which the defendant or any relevant office or department of the defendant is based” the Defendant and Interested Party operate nationally but are based in London.

Accordingly, the region with which the claim is “most closely connected” is the Leeds or North Eastern region, but it is a relatively loose connection.

There is also a good argument that it would be desirable to administer and determine the claim in the Leeds region in the light of the volume of claims issued at, and the capacity, resources and workload of, the London court, as Mr Lee alluded to.

However, there are other factors in paragraph 2.5 that are relevant and which militate in favour, just, of the claim remaining in London.

Under (a), the primary reason expressed by the Claimant in objecting to transfer to Leeds is the fact that he has instructed solicitors and counsel based in London. It is said that it is easier and cheaper for them to travel to court in London than it is for them to travel to Leeds. His personal attendance is unlikely to be needed at any hearing but if he wishes to attend, he would be the only person who needed to travel. While the Claimant could instruct counsel based in Leeds, there would be additional costs in doing so. There is force in these points, especially given that both the Claimant and Defendant are publicly funded and the Interested Party is a charity. Accordingly, factors (b) and (i) are engaged.

Further, the Claimant’s counsel requires particular reasonable adjustments for hearings. The Claimant’s submissions suggest that this might be more difficult to arrange in Leeds. While I would hope that the Leeds court could accommodate what is needed, I am not aware of a time when this has occurred; and it appears that the necessary adjustments have been arranged previously at the Royal Courts of Justice without difficulty.

For all these reasons, I have concluded that this claim should remain in London.