YVONNE FORTT (R on the application of) v FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPENSATION SCHEME LTD

Administrative Court claims should generally be administered and determined in the region with which they have the closest connection. The assessment is fact-sensitive and includes the claimant’s location, the defendant’s location, the subject matter, legal representatives, travel and cost, related proceedings, court capacity and other relevant circumstances under Practice Direction 54C. Costs and travel should be assessed symmetrically. A defendant’s national functions do not, by themselves, make London the appropriate venue. Regional expertise and available court resources may justify transfer where the regional court can determine the claim efficiently and without delay.

The claimant issued a judicial review claim in London challenging the Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd’s interim approach to claims under section 27 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. A minded to transfer order proposed transferring the claim to Manchester. The claimant, who lived in Blackpool and whose legal representatives were based in Warrington and Manchester, did not oppose transfer. The defendant sought retention in London, relying on its London location, the location of its legal team, increased costs, statutory efficiency obligations and the experience of London judges with related litigation. The central issue was the most appropriate regional venue for administration and determination of the claim.

1. Disposition. The claim was transferred for administration and determination in the Administrative Court in Manchester.
2. Closest connection. Under Practice Direction 54C, the court must identify the region with which the claim has the closest connection. Relevant considerations included the subject matter, the claimant’s residence, the defendant’s location, legal representatives, travel and cost, related proceedings, public interest, timing, court capacity and resources.
3. Balancing costs and travel. London had legitimate connections through the defendant and its legal team. Manchester had equivalent connections through the claimant and her legal team. Travel and accommodation costs therefore substantially cancelled one another out. There was no basis for favouring a public authority defendant’s costs over those of a private claimant.
4. National functions. The defendant’s provision of a national service did not make London a national venue or otherwise determine the venue. The claim remained primarily the claimant’s claim, with its most direct impact in the claimant’s region.
5. Related expertise and capacity. No sufficiently similar outstanding claim required determination with or immediately after this claim. The asserted body of London expertise was overstated. Manchester had ticketed specialist judges, visiting High Court judges and adequate capacity and resources. Transfer would not cause inefficiency or delay and would help avoid overburdening the Royal Courts of Justice.

First-instance judicial review venue determination. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.