Ladybill Limited, R (on the application of) v Sheffield Magistrates' Court

Under Practice Direction 54C, the general expectation is that a judicial review claim is administered and determined in the region with which the claim has the closest connection. The test is directed to the subject matter and legal context of the claim, rather than primarily to the convenience or location of the parties, their solicitors or counsel.

Where judicial review challenges a decision made in ongoing proceedings concerning property within a local authority area, the claim will ordinarily have its closest connection with the region in which those underlying proceedings are being conducted. Travel convenience and the location of legal representatives do not displace that connection. A claim issued in the wrong regional venue may therefore be transferred, with resulting delay and travel costs attributable to the parties’ venue choice.

Ladybill Limited brought judicial review proceedings in Manchester challenging the refusal of a recusal request made in rating-liability proceedings before Sheffield Magistrates’ Court. The underlying proceedings had been brought by Rotherham City Council and concerned property situated within Rotherham’s local authority area.

The claim was issued in Manchester, although the claim form stated that Manchester was the region with which the claim was most closely connected. A minded-to-transfer order was made, proposing transfer to Leeds, the Administrative Court venue for the North-East region. The issue was whether the claim belonged in Manchester because of the claimant’s or representatives’ connections and convenience, or in Leeds because of its connection with the underlying proceedings and subject matter.

1. Transfer ordered. The judicial review proceedings were directed to be transferred from Manchester to Leeds.
2. Paragraph 2.5 of Practice Direction 54C refers to the region with which the claim has the closest connection. The relevant focus is the claim itself, not the parties. The submission that the general rule concerns the closest connection to the parties was therefore rejected.
3. The claim concerned whether a district judge sitting at Sheffield Magistrates’ Court should have recused himself in proceedings brought by a local authority concerning rating liability for property situated in Rotherham. Those underlying proceedings would continue in the North-East region, whether before the same judge or another judge. The judicial review claim was consequently most closely connected with that region.
4. Considerations of convenience and travel for the claimant, its in-house solicitor and London-based counsel had no material weight against the claim’s regional connection. The travel involved was modest in the context of the proceedings, and the claimant could have instructed counsel based in the North-East.
5. The existence of a similar judicial review claim involving another group company did not support retaining the present claim in Manchester. That claim had itself been transferred to Leeds. Any delay or additional travel costs resulting from choosing and defending the wrong venue were attributable to those choices.

The claim was filed in Manchester on 6 June 2024. A minded-to-transfer order proposing transfer to Leeds was made on 14 June 2024. The court determined the venue issue on the papers and directed transfer to Leeds.