Dineshkumar Bhimsinhji Thakor Aka Parmar v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A judicial review claim should ordinarily be issued and determined in the Administrative Court region with which it is most closely connected. The resulting presumption as to venue is not normally displaced merely because the parties have instructed London-based lawyers. The court may consider the additional cost, travelling time and availability consequences of a transfer, but the choice of London counsel should not make a London venue self-fulfilling.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal of further asylum and human rights submissions. Although he lived in Leeds and acknowledged that the claim was most closely connected with that region, he filed the claim in London because of the perceived importance of the legal issues and the location of his lawyers.

After a minded-to-transfer order, both parties asked that the claim remain in London. They relied principally on the instruction of London counsel and the additional cost, travelling time and possible availability problems associated with a hearing in Leeds. The court had to determine the appropriate venue for the judicial review claim.

1. The claim was transferred to the Administrative Court in Leeds. The parties accepted that the claim was most closely connected with Leeds and that the presumption was therefore that it should be dealt with there. Nothing about the legal issues prevented the Leeds court from addressing the claim properly.

2. The court accepted that a Leeds hearing would require travel and could carry additional cost and time consequences. Those matters did not displace the appropriate regional venue. Instructing London-based counsel should not normally drive the choice of London as venue and thereby make that choice self-fulfilling.

3. The defendant had instructed London counsel because the claim had been lodged in London. That did not justify retaining the London venue. The claim form disclosed that the region of closest connection had not been selected, so a transfer issue was foreseeable. The parties could have sought a prompt venue decision, and the defendant remained able either to change counsel or send the same counsel to Leeds.

4. Neither the claimant’s initial choice of London, the geographical location of the instructed lawyers, the absence of oral evidence, nor the claimant’s stated intention not to attend altered the conclusion that Leeds was the appropriate venue and the place where the claim should have been issued.

This was a first-instance venue determination in a judicial review claim. The claim was filed in the London Administrative Court on 8 August 2022. Following a minded-to-transfer order made on 26 August 2022, both parties submitted that the claim should remain in London. The court instead directed its transfer to the Administrative Court in Leeds.