Umer Yousaf, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber & Anor

Administrative Court judicial review claims should generally be administered and determined in the region with which they have the closest connection. The assessment focuses on the claim’s subject matter, the claimant’s residence, and the defendant’s location, while permitting consideration of travel, hearing facilities, court resources, public interest and other relevant circumstances.

A claimant’s preference for London attracts limited weight where it rests on unsupported concerns about regional expertise or local bias. Administrative Court judges are expected to be familiar with human-rights issues. Any concern about an individual judge’s impartiality may be addressed through an application for recusal.

The claimant issued a judicial review claim in London concerning a decision of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber made in Bradford. He relied on the Human Rights Act 1998 and alleged breaches of his rights. An administrative court lawyer made a minded to transfer order, proposing transfer to Leeds because the claimant lived in the North-Eastern region and no sufficient reason had been given for proceeding in London.

The claimant opposed transfer, relying principally on his preference for London and concerns about regional human-rights expertise and local bias. The issue was whether, having regard to the applicable venue guidance, the claim was most closely connected with London or the North-Eastern region.

1. Outcome. The claim was transferred to the North-Eastern region for administration and determination in Leeds.
2. Under CPR PD 54C, proceedings should ordinarily be commenced, administered and determined in the region with which the claim has the closest connection. The court must have regard principally to the subject matter of the claim, the claimant’s residence, and the location of the defendant or any relevant departmental office. It may also consider the other circumstances identified in paragraph 2.5.
3. The claim was most closely connected with the Northern region because the claimant lived in Rotherham and the challenged UTIAC decision had been made in Bradford.
4. Additional factors supported transfer. Leeds would be cheaper and easier for the unrepresented claimant to attend. The Leeds court had video-link facilities. The court also had to consider London’s capacity, resources and workload, and regional transfer furthered that objective where appropriate.
5. The factors concerning local public interest, expedition, related claims, and devolution did not apply. The claimant’s preference for London was relevant but carried little weight because the reasons advanced were unpersuasive. Judges sitting in Leeds could be assumed to be familiar with human-rights law, and concerns about bias directed at a particular judge could be addressed by an application for recusal.

Not stated in the judgment.