ENITANWA OREKOYA (R on the application of) v LEEDS COUNTY COURT

[2022] EWHC 540 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2022] EWHC 540 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
11 March 2022
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Civil procedure Venue and transfer of proceedings
Keywords
judicial review venue transfer of proceedings closest connection minded to transfer order interests of justice overriding objective claims issued in wrong region
Outcome
claim transferred to leeds
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

In a judicial review claim issued in the wrong region, venue is determined by the claim’s closest connection and the interests of justice. A claimant’s unexplained reliance on an alleged precedent cannot displace the clear regional connection of the claim. The court may determine a venue issue on the papers where the parties have had a fair opportunity to address it and further submissions would not materially assist the decision.

Factual background

The claimant issued a judicial review claim in Birmingham challenging a decision of District Judge Goldberg in proceedings concerning Leeds County Court. A minded to transfer order proposed transfer to Leeds. The claimant objected, relying on an alleged precedent and stating that Leeds County Court had previously declined to issue the claim. The court considered whether the venue issue should be deferred to allow further submissions and, if not, which region was appropriate.

Held

  1. Venue determined in Leeds. The claim had no meaningful connection with the Midlands region and was closely connected with Leeds. The fact that it had been issued in Birmingham did not determine the appropriate venue.
  2. The claimant’s reference to a previous precedent could not displace that conclusion. The alleged precedent was neither explained nor produced, and it was not relied on in the written objections in a way capable of establishing a different venue.
  3. The court was entitled to determine the venue question on the papers. It had the substance of the claimant’s objections, and there was no specific medical evidence explaining why she could not provide those objections in writing. Deferring the decision for an unspecified further period would not have been necessary or appropriate in the interests of justice or having regard to the overriding objective.
  4. The claim was transferred to Leeds for ongoing conduct there.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

The judgment records that the judicial review claim was issued in Birmingham on 16 February 2022. A minded to transfer order was made on 25 February 2022, proposing transfer to Leeds. The High Court (Administrative Court) determined that Leeds was the appropriate venue.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.