Gnanatheepan Subramaniam, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In a judicial review concerning ongoing detention, venue should ordinarily be determined by the region with which the claim has its closest connection. The location of the claimant’s or defendant’s solicitors, counsel, or a possible future immigration removal centre does not in principle determine the appropriate Administrative Court. Travel costs remain relevant but are not decisive. The court may also take account of the prompt and efficient administration of claims, including regional capacity, resources and workload. A claim filed in the wrong region may be transferred where transfer better reflects its closest connection and avoids delay.

The claimant brought judicial review proceedings challenging his ongoing detention. The claim was filed in London, although he was detained at HMP Doncaster and the pre-action correspondence had been sent to the Home Office’s regional Leeds email address.

A minded-to-transfer order was made under which the parties could make representations opposing transfer. The claimant argued that transfer to London was appropriate because he might be moved to an immigration removal centre near Heathrow or Gatwick and because the parties’ legal representatives were based in London. The issue was whether the claim should be transferred to the Administrative Court in Leeds.

1. Transfer ordered. The claim was transferred to Leeds.
2. The claimant’s ongoing detention at HMP Doncaster gave the claim its closest connection with the Administrative Court in Leeds. The connection was substantive rather than merely technical, and the claim had been wrongly filed in London.
3. The possibility that the claimant might later be transferred to an immigration removal centre near Heathrow or Gatwick was not a convincing basis for retaining the claim in London.
4. Although travel costs were relevant, the location of the claimant’s solicitors, the defendant’s solicitors and counsel could not in principle drive the conclusion that London was the appropriate regional court.
5. The court also considered the efficient administration of judicial review claims. Given the volume of claims and the capacity, resources and workload of the various Administrative Courts, it was desirable for the claim to be administered and determined in the region with which it had the closest connection. Retaining the claim in London, and resisting transfer, risked injecting delay.

Not stated in the judgment.