FAJR ELLIS (R on the application of) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION & ANOR.

In judicial review proceedings, venue should ordinarily be determined promptly where the claim appears to have been issued in a region lacking its closest connection. The court must assess the claim’s subject matter and practical effects, including where the relevant arrangements operate and where their impact is felt. The residence and university location of the claimant, the location of legal representatives, and the defendants’ offices are relevant but not decisive. Having regard to the Practice Direction, regional court capacity and the overall circumstances, the claim should be administered and determined in the region with which it has its closest connection, where that is possible.

The claimant, a prisoner at HMP Hull undertaking a master’s degree at a London university, brought a judicial review claim concerning access from prison to higher education, student-loan arrangements and related facilities. The claim was issued in London. An order was made proposing transfer to Leeds, and the claimant’s representatives objected, relying principally on the university, the defendants and the legal representatives being in or near London.

The defendants and interested party did not oppose transfer. The issue was whether the claim had its closest connection with the London region or with the North-East region, for which Leeds was the regional Administrative Court, and whether venue should be determined immediately.

1. Venue determined promptly. The court had a full and fair opportunity to consider the claimant’s representations. The grounds for judicial review were extensive and had been settled by counsel. Further delay to await resolution of funding was unnecessary and inappropriate. Prompt determination may prevent an inappropriate venue from becoming entrenched through the parties’ subsequent organisational and representation decisions.
2. Assessment of closest connection. Venue is assessed by considering the subject matter and practical operation of the claim, the region in which the claimant resides, and the location of the defendant or any relevant office or department, together with the other circumstances and the criteria in the Practice Direction. The claimant’s university, the defendants’ offices and the representatives’ locations were relevant factors, but they did not determine the issue.
3. Application. The claim concerned arrangements affecting the claimant while imprisoned in Hull. The impugned restrictions and their alleged effects operated in, and were experienced by the claimant in, Hull. The claim therefore had a specific and closest connection with the North-East region. The travel and cost implications for London-based representatives did not outweigh that connection.
4. Order. It was possible and desirable, having regard also to the volume of claims and the capacity, resources and workload of the Administrative Courts, for the claim to be administered and determined at the Administrative Court in Leeds. The case was transferred there.