Dr Imad Naasani & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

A Practice Direction governing the venue of judicial review proceedings must be interpreted and applied consistently with the overriding objective. Its provisions do not create an inflexible jurisdictional requirement where the court has jurisdiction, the relevant proceedings have been case-managed in a regional Administrative Court office, and no special advocate or close material procedure is involved. A late transfer application may properly be refused where the parties and court have arranged an appropriate hearing before a High Court judge and any practical difficulty has been resolved.

The claimants brought judicial review proceedings concerning matters governed by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. At the permission stage, the court directed that the claim continue as a statutory review and made case-management directions under CPR Part 79, including that the substantive hearing be before a High Court judge in Manchester. The defendant did not apply for a venue determination within the specified period.

After difficulties arose in fixing a suitable hearing date, the defendant applied to transfer the proceedings to London, relying principally on the venue provisions applicable to proceedings involving a special advocate. The central issue was whether those provisions required transfer, or whether the court could retain the proceedings in Manchester in the circumstances.

1. Application for transfer. The application to transfer the proceedings to London was refused. The alternative request for a new hearing date in Manchester was granted. The substantive hearing was fixed for 28 October 2024 before a High Court judge in Manchester.
2. Delay. Delay in obtaining a hearing date was not a good reason for transfer. Suitable High Court judge slots had been available in Manchester, and the practical difficulty concerning counsel’s availability had been resolved by fixing a new date.
3. Venue provisions. The defendant was not entitled to treat the venue provisions as imposing a jurisdictional straitjacket. Although CPR PD54C §3.1(1)(d) identified proceedings involving a special advocate as an excepted class ordinarily requiring London commencement or transfer, the present case involved no close material procedure or special advocate. The proceedings had been managed in Manchester throughout, the transfer application was made substantially out of time, and the claimants consistently opposed transfer.
4. Overriding objective. The Practice Direction had to be interpreted and applied consistently with the overriding objective. In the particular circumstances, the court had jurisdiction to retain the proceedings in Manchester and it was appropriate to do so.
5. New information. The court recorded that the first claimant had recently succeeded in transferring funds to Syria. The parties were left to consider the implications of that information for the substantive issues.

This was a first-instance venue determination. At an earlier permission stage, the court gave judgment on 15 November 2023 in [2023] EWHC 2853 (Admin), directing that the claim continue as a statutory review and making case-management directions. The present judgment determined the subsequent venue application.