Airedale Chemical Company Ltd, R (on the application of) v HM Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

In determining the venue of an Administrative Court claim, the court must identify the region with which the claim has its specific connection and closest connection. A party’s choice of solicitor, counsel, service office or administrative arrangements does not by itself determine the appropriate region. Travel and accommodation costs are relevant, but must be assessed in the wider circumstances. Where possible and desirable, having regard to court capacity, resources and workload, the claim should be administered and determined in the region with which it has its closest connection.

The claimant brought judicial review proceedings concerning tax liability and issued the claim in London. A minded to transfer order was made for transfer to Leeds. Both parties opposed transfer, relying on the location of their legal representatives, service on HMRC’s London office, HMRC’s conduct of the matter from London and Salford, and additional travel or accommodation costs.

The court had to determine the appropriate Administrative Court venue by reference to the claim’s regional connections and the practical considerations relevant to its administration and determination.

1. Disposition. The appropriate venue was the Administrative Court in Leeds, and the claim was transferred there.
2. The claim concerned tax liability, with substantial sums at stake. The decision-maker was based in Newcastle and the claimant in Keighley. The claim therefore had its specific and closest connection to the North-East region.
3. The parties’ choices as to service, offices and legal representatives were matters of decision-making autonomy. They could not, of themselves, determine that London was the appropriate venue. HMRC’s London office did not make London the appropriate national venue for a claim against a national public authority.
4. Travel and possible accommodation costs for lawyers were relevant, but insufficient in the circumstances to justify retaining the claim in London, particularly given the scale of what was at stake.
5. The court had regard to the volume of claims and the capacity, resources and workload of the Administrative Courts. It was possible and desirable for the claim to be administered and determined in Leeds.