Prestwick Care Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Administrative Court claims should ordinarily be administered and determined in the region with which they have the closest connection. The assessment considers the claim’s subject matter, the location of the parties and relevant public bodies, linked proceedings, access to hearings, urgency, court resources and other relevant circumstances. The parties’ choice of London lawyers, and the resulting convenience or cost of travel, will not ordinarily outweigh a strong regional connection or the desirability of dealing with linked claims together. A case may be transferred where its substantive issues and related proceedings are centred in another region, while genuinely urgent applications may be dealt with through an appropriate transfer mechanism.

The claimants sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to continue an arrangement protecting their employees pending related litigation and sponsorship-licence applications, together with alleged delay in determining those applications. The claim was issued in London. A minded-to-transfer order proposed transfer to the North Eastern region, where the claimants were located, the relevant decisions appeared to have been made, and three earlier judicial reviews between the parties had been commenced. Both parties opposed transfer, principally because their legal representatives were based in London. The issue was whether the claim had a specific connection with a region and, if not, which region was most closely connected under CPR PD 54C.

1. Transfer ordered. The claim was transferred to the North Eastern region for administration and determination.
2. Under CPR PD 54C, claims should, if possible, be administered and determined in the region with which they have a specific or closest connection. The relevant assessment includes the subject matter, the parties’ locations, the location of the defendant or relevant department, and the other circumstances identified in paragraph 2.5.
3. The claimants were located in Newcastle and the relevant decisions appeared to have been made in Sheffield. Both locations were in the North Eastern region. No substantive aspect of the case remained in London after the interim-relief appeal had been determined.
4. The existence of three earlier judicial reviews between the parties in the North Eastern region, including an ongoing claim raising similar and linked issues, strongly supported transfer so that the claims could be administered and determined in the same court.
5. The court considered the parties’ concerns about urgency and Leeds court resources. Interim relief had already been conclusively determined, Leeds had video-link facilities, and genuinely urgent applications could be transferred to London if necessary.
6. The parties’ decision to instruct London lawyers was not, by itself, sufficiently persuasive to outweigh the regional connection and the desirability of dealing with linked proceedings together. The court relied on R (Airedale Chemical Company Ltd) v HMRC and R (Thakor / Palmer) v SSHD in assessing that factor.

The judgment records that an appeal concerning interim relief was determined by Singh LJ on 10 April 2025. The approved judgment was later submitted to the court. This judgment concerned venue and ordered transfer to the North Eastern region.