Aubrey Weis, R (on application of) v Commissioners for HMRC

Administrative Court claims should generally be administered and determined in the region with which they have the closest connection. Relevant considerations include the subject matter, the claimant’s residence, the defendant’s location and other circumstances identified in Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Practice Direction 54C. The parties’ choice of London lawyers is relevant but cannot by itself determine venue. The court may retain a claim in London where a proposed transfer to a specialist tribunal would create logistical, cost or resource difficulties, or where transfer would risk further delay. Venue must ultimately be determined consistently with the overriding objective.

The claimant sought judicial review of HMRC closure notices and statutory review decisions concerning his domicile and liability to income tax on worldwide income. He issued the claim in London, relying on his business interests and the fact that both parties’ legal representatives were based there.

A minded-to-transfer order proposed transferring the claim to the Northern region in Manchester because the claimant lived in Salford. The claimant sought, separately, transfer of the claim to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). The issue was whether the claim should remain in London or be administered and determined in Manchester.

1. Claim retained in London. The claim should remain in London.
2. Practice Direction 54C establishes a general expectation that a claim will be administered and determined in the region with which it has the closest connection. Here, the Northern region had the closest connection because the claimant lived in Salford, the claim concerned his individual income-tax treatment, and HMRC had an office in Manchester. The parties’ London representation did not outweigh those connections.
3. The court nevertheless had to consider the particular circumstances and the overriding objective. The claimant sought possible transfer to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), which generally sat in London. A transfer to Manchester could require a specialist High Court or Upper Tribunal judge to sit there, creating additional logistical, cost and resource difficulties.
4. The later administration of R (Airedale Chemical Company Ltd) v HMRC in London after transfer to the Upper Tribunal reinforced that concern. The court was also concerned that further transfer would cause additional delay, particularly because determination of the venue issue had already been delayed administratively and permission had not yet been decided.
5. Taking those matters together, retaining the claim in London was more appropriate, notwithstanding the regional connection with Manchester.

This was a first-instance judicial determination on venue. The claim had been issued in London, and a minded-to-transfer order proposed administration and determination in Manchester before the matter was referred to Mrs Justice Hill for final determination.