SK Enterprises (UK) Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Judicial review claims should generally be administered and determined in the region with which they have the closest connection. The court should consider the claim’s subject matter, the claimant’s location, and the defendant’s relevant location, together with other relevant circumstances identified in Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Practice Direction 54C. The parties’ choice of London lawyers is relevant, but it should not ordinarily determine venue. The court may weigh travel costs, hearing facilities, public interest, court resources and related factors. A claim should be transferred where the regional connection is strong, the regional court can administer and determine it, and the competing venue considerations do not outweigh that connection.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision revoking its licence to sponsor workers under the Skilled Worker route. The claim was issued in London, although the claimant’s business address and relevant operations were in Leeds. A minded to transfer order proposed transfer to the North-Eastern region, administered from Leeds. The claimant opposed transfer because its solicitors and barristers were based in London. The issue was whether the claim should remain in London or be administered and determined in the North-Eastern region.

1. Transfer ordered. The claim was transferred to the North-Eastern region for administration and determination in Leeds.
2. Practice Direction 54C establishes a general expectation that proceedings will be administered and determined in the region with which the claim has the closest connection. That assessment requires consideration of the subject matter, the claimant’s location, and the defendant’s relevant location, together with the other listed circumstances.
3. The claim was most closely connected with the North-Eastern region. The claimant was based in Leeds, its business operations were nearby, the claim concerned staff at its Cathill branch, and the challenged decision had been made by a decision-maker based in Sheffield.
4. The claimant’s London lawyers and the resulting travel costs were relevant under paragraph 2.5. However, travel between London and Leeds was practicable, the claimant’s own travel would be reduced by a Leeds hearing, and parties have decision-making autonomy over which lawyers to instruct. Relying on Thakor and Airedale Chemical Company, the court held that London counsel should not ordinarily drive a London venue choice.
5. Leeds had suitable video-link facilities and sufficient specialist judicial resources. The claim could therefore be administered and determined there, satisfying the governing regional venue principle.

The claim was issued in London on 28 November 2024. A minded to transfer order was made on 29 November 2024, followed by written submissions from the parties. The present High Court determination ordered transfer to Leeds.