Valencia Waste Management Ltd, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency

Judicial review proceedings involving a special advocate should, in principle, be administered from London under CPR PD54C, because specialist arrangements, staff and security facilities are concentrated there. The court may transfer proceedings to London where it is clearly stated that a special advocate is to be instructed, even though appointment has not yet occurred. The court may reserve costs where the transfer application becomes necessary only after a recent change in circumstances. The court need not determine whether the Practice Direction’s exception expressly covers every judicial review involving closed material procedure when that issue is unnecessary to the venue decision.

The claimant challenged an Environment Agency decision concerning financial provision for a waste site. The judicial review was commenced in November 2022 and administered in Manchester. The defendant later notified the court of an intended application under section 6(2) of the Justice and Security Act 2013 for permission to use closed material procedure, with a special advocate to be appointed.

The defendant applied to transfer the proceedings to London. The central issue was whether the anticipated instruction of a special advocate engaged CPR PD54C §3.1(1)(d), and whether the proceedings should consequently be administered from London.

1. Transfer ordered. The proceedings were transferred to London and were to be administered from that office. The essential fact was the defendant’s clear statement that a special advocate “is to be instructed”, which engaged the purpose of CPR PD54C §3.1(1)(d) (paras [12]–[16]).
2. CPR PD54C §2.1 generally requires judicial review proceedings to be commenced in the Administrative Court office for the region most closely connected with the claim, having regard to its subject matter. The provision is subject to excepted classes of claim. Proceedings in which a special advocate is or is to be instructed are treated as an excepted class under §3.1(1)(d), with transfer to London contemplated by §2.2.
3. The purpose of the exception is that proceedings involving special advocates should ordinarily be handled in London, where the specialist arrangements, appropriately cleared staff and relevant security facilities are available. The court relied on that institutional purpose and the information concerning the location and practical availability of special advocates and trained court staff (paras [5], [15]–[16]).
4. The court did not decide whether CPR PD54C §3.1(1)(d) was, as a matter of jurisdiction, applicable to a judicial review involving a closed material procedure under Part 82. That issue was unnecessary because the parties proceeded on the basis that the court had jurisdiction to retain or transfer the proceedings (para [4]).
5. The time for the defendant’s section 6(2) application was extended to seven days from the transfer order dated 24 April 2024. Questions concerning the form of any future hearing, and whether the proceedings might later return to Manchester, were left to the judge dealing with the next stages. Costs were reserved (paras [17]–[19]).

First-instance venue determination in judicial review proceedings. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.