ES, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Venue Determination)

Venue for an Administrative Court claim is determined by identifying the region with which the claim is most closely connected. The court must consider the subject matter, the claimant’s residence, the defendant’s location and any other relevant circumstances identified in Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Practice Direction 54C.

A connection arising from a claimant’s detention may be outweighed where detention could change, other regional links are absent, the parties and representatives prefer another venue, and travel costs favour that venue. Court capacity and workload are relevant, but do not determine venue by themselves. The claim was therefore retained in London.

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions concerning directions for removal to Eritrea and trafficking. He issued the claim in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), which transferred it to the Administrative Court because the Upper Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

An Administrative Court lawyer made a minded-to-transfer order proposing transfer from London to Manchester because the claimant was detained at HMP Manchester. The claimant opposed transfer. The defendant initially addressed venue in her summary grounds and later concurred in retaining the claim in London.

The issue was which region had the closest connection with the claim under Practice Direction 54C.

1. Venue determined. The claim was to remain in London and be administered and determined there.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Practice Direction 54C, the court must identify the region with which the claim is most closely connected, having regard principally to the claim’s subject matter, the claimant’s residence, and the defendant’s location or relevant office. The court may also consider the parties’ venue preferences, travel ease and cost, video-link facilities, public interest, appropriate expedition, court capacity and workload, related claims, devolution issues, and the location of legal representatives.
3. The claimant’s detention at HMP Manchester and the defendant decision-maker’s location in Liverpool provided a connection with the Northern region. Court capacity and workload also supported regional transfer where appropriate.
4. Those factors were outweighed by the possibility that the claimant could be moved during the claim, the absence of other specific Northern connections, the London location of the First-tier Tribunal hearings and both parties’ legal representatives, and the parties’ preferences. The claimant was willing to travel to London and was unlikely to give evidence. Travel costs also favoured London because the claimant’s journey would cost less than requiring all legal representatives to travel to Manchester, particularly given public funding and the defendant’s status as a public body.
5. Video-link availability was neutral. Public interest, expedition, related claims and devolution issues did not apply.

The judgment records that the claim was transferred from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to the Administrative Court because the Upper Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. This court then determined that the claim should remain in London.