Uen Dodoveci, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

For venue purposes, an administrative claim is most closely connected with the region having the strongest overall geographical connection to the challenged decision and the underlying events. In an immigration detention case, relevant considerations may include where the claimant was detained when the decisions were made, where the notices were issued, and the location of the claimant’s legal representatives. The decision-maker’s location and the fact that lawyers are based elsewhere do not necessarily determine the appropriate venue. The court may seek further factual clarification before deciding whether to transfer the claim.

The claimant brought a judicial review claim in London challenging decisions refusing and certifying his asylum claim and setting removal directions. A minded-to-transfer order proposed transferring the claim to Leeds because the claimant was recorded as resident in Middlesbrough. The claimant opposed transfer, relying principally on the London location of the decision-maker and his solicitors, and on the fact that he would not need to attend a hearing.

Further information established that the claimant was then resident in Birmingham and had been detained at Yarlswood Detention Centre when the impugned decisions were made. The issue was whether the claim was most closely connected with the South-East region, and therefore should remain in London, or should be transferred to another Administrative Court venue.

1. Venue determined by closest connection. The court held that the claim was most closely connected with the South-East region. The assessment required attention to the substance and geographical setting of the challenged decisions, rather than reliance on a single administrative or professional connection.
2. Relevant immigration-detention circumstances. The claim concerned the legality of decisions refusing and certifying an asylum claim and setting removal directions. The decisions were issued while the claimant was detained at Yarlswood Detention Centre, in the South-East Circuit. That circumstance gave the claim a substantial geographical connection with the South-East.
3. Location of lawyers not decisive. Although the claimant’s solicitors and solicitor advocates were based in London, and the impugned decisions had been issued from London, those matters did not outweigh the connection arising from the claimant’s detention and the delivery of the relevant notices. The claimant’s non-attendance at any hearing was also not determinative.
4. Further clarification. The court was entitled to request information about the claimant’s current whereabouts and the place of detention when the decisions were made before reaching a final venue determination.
5. Order. The court declined to transfer the claim to Leeds or Birmingham. The claim was to remain in London.