Assurant General Insurance Ltd, R (on the application of) v Financial Ombudsman Service

In determining the regional venue for a judicial review claim, the court must identify the region with which the claim is most closely connected, or the regional centre at which it should properly be administered and determined. The place of filing is not itself decisive. Nor is the location chosen by the parties’ legal representatives an overarching justification for retaining proceedings in London. The court must assess the subject matter, the parties’ locations, the location of relevant witnesses and other circumstances in the aggregate. The assessment may be finely balanced. A claimant’s North-West location may generally favour Manchester, but that consideration can be outweighed by the overall connections supporting London.

This was a judicial determination on the papers concerning venue. The claimant had issued a judicial review claim in London and had stated in Form N461 that London was the region with which the claim had the closest connection. A minded to transfer order proposed transfer to Manchester, and both principal parties objected.

The underlying claim challenged decisions of the Financial Ombudsman Service concerning its jurisdiction to consider complaints against the claimant. The venue issue required determination of whether London or Manchester was the appropriate regional Administrative Court centre.

1. Venue determination. The claim was to remain administered and determined in the London region.
2. The fact that proceedings were commenced in London did not itself justify retaining them there. Parties should not obtain unwarranted procedural traction by filing in a venue whose connection with the claim is weaker.
3. The answer to the Form N461 question concerning the region with which the claim had the closest connection should be given straightforwardly. If the claim had not been issued in that region, the claimant should acknowledge that and give reasons.
4. The location of solicitors and counsel was not, in itself, a convincing overarching justification for London. Allowing legal representatives’ location and consequent travel costs to dictate venue would undermine regionalisation, the distribution of work and the public interest.
5. The court nevertheless had to consider all relevant circumstances in aggregate. Relevant matters included the subject matter, the claimant’s and defendant’s locations, the locations of the interested parties, the location of the appropriate witness, travel and cost considerations, participation by interested parties and the absence of any subject-matter property or premises linked to Manchester.
6. The claimant’s registered address in Crewe was an important feature, and there were generally strong reasons for a North-West claimant to expect determination in Manchester. In this case, however, those considerations were outweighed by the other features supporting London, including the defendant’s London base, the Berkshire location of the relevant claimant witness, the location of the legal teams, the parties’ objections to transfer and the interested parties’ lack of active participation and dispersed locations.
7. The determination was finely balanced, but on balance London was the appropriate regional centre.

A minded to transfer order proposing transfer from London to Manchester was made on 8 February 2021. Following objections from the claimant and defendant, the High Court determined that the claim should remain in London.