Assent Building Control Ltd, R (on the application of) v Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register Ltd

In determining the venue for a judicial review, the court considers the claim’s closest connection and all relevant circumstances. Relevant considerations include the subject matter, the location of the claimant and defendant, practical convenience, travel and cost, and any other material connection. A claimant’s stated venue preference is relevant but is not decisive. A claim does not require a particular venue merely because it raises issues described as involving public interest, unless that element is substantial enough to justify the locality.

The claimant brought judicial review proceedings against the defendant’s decision to dismiss an appeal from disciplinary findings and sanctions involving withdrawal of approval and removal from a register for two years. The claim was issued in London. A minded to transfer order proposed transfer to Leeds, and the parties were invited to object.

The claimant and interested parties filed no objections. The defendant relied on its London office, legal representatives, the location of the relevant building project in Luton, and the claimant’s original preference for London. The issue was whether the claim had its closest connection with London or Leeds and whether it should be transferred.

1. Transfer ordered. The claim was to proceed in Leeds, which was the closest connection and, in any event, the appropriate venue.
2. The assessment required consideration of the claim’s subject matter, the location of the claimant and defendant, and other relevant circumstances. The claimant’s registered address in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, was the relevant claimant location and was a key feature in assessing the claim’s closest connection.
3. The claimant’s preference for London was conscious and relevant, but the reasons given for it were unconvincing. The claim did not have a specific connection to London engaging the principle that it should, if possible, be administered and determined there.
4. The Luton building project and related criminal proceedings, the convening of the disciplinary hearings from London, and the location of the defendant and legal representatives favoured London to some extent. Those factors were outweighed by the claimant’s location, the absence of substantial public interest requiring a London hearing, and the fact that travel from London to Leeds was not especially burdensome.
5. The judicial review grounds, including unlawfulness, irrationality, unfairness, disproportionality and alleged flaws in the sanctions regime, did not create a substantial public interest element requiring the proceedings to be heard in London or any other particular locality. The claimant’s failure to object to the minded to transfer order was also relevant.