Adam Bale, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for HMRC

Judicial review claims should generally be heard at the Administrative Court venue for the region with which they are most closely connected. That public-interest consideration may be displaced by sufficiently strong practical factors, including geography, time, cost and the parties’ wishes. The parties’ choice of lawyers, particularly London-based counsel, should not determine venue. A claim should not default to London because it is the capital or is perceived as a national or superior venue. Where the claimant’s chosen venue appears weak, a defendant may appropriately seek an early venue determination, with the acknowledgment-of-service timetable placed on hold where practicable.

The claimant challenged a personal liability notice concerning an alleged penalty for inaccurate PAYE returns. The judicial review claim was filed in London, although the claimant, his company, and his solicitors were connected with the North-West region. A minded-to-transfer order proposed transferring the claim to Manchester.

Both parties opposed the transfer, relying principally on the location of their lawyers and counsel, practical convenience, cost, and the possible involvement of London-based joint administrators. The issue was whether those considerations justified retaining London rather than transferring the claim to the regional venue with which it was most closely connected.

1. Venue. The claim was transferred to Manchester. The North-West region was plainly the region with which the claim was most closely connected. There was a general public interest in judicial review claims being heard at the appropriate regional venue, and in preventing claims from defaulting to London because of its status or perceived hierarchy.
2. The court retained discretion to approve another venue where the circumstances justified it. Relevant considerations included the geographical locations of those concerned, time and cost, and the parties’ wishes, particularly where they were jointly expressed. Those factors were powerful but were not decisive.
3. The choice of solicitors or counsel could not drive venue. Travel by London-based lawyers and counsel was a consequence of their own choices. Meetings and preparation could take place in London, while any permission hearing would be short and could readily be attended from Liverpool or London. The proceedings did not involve live evidence requiring witnesses to attend a particular court centre.
4. The court also emphasised the value of a prompt venue determination where the claimant’s choice appeared fragile. In R (Ellis) v SS for Education [2022] EWHC 1263 (Admin), the court had explained that early determination could prevent later decisions about lawyers and counsel creating momentum anchoring a case to the initially chosen venue. The same approach was repeated in Bhimsinhji Thakor v SSHD [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin).
5. The potential transfer to the Upper Tribunal in London and the reference to London-based joint administrators did not justify London. Looking at the matter overall, venue-related costs were not substantial enough to displace the considerations supporting Manchester.