Matilda Jane Farnell v Nursing and Midwifery Council

Venue for an Administrative Court claim should ordinarily reflect the region with which it has the closest connection. The court must consider the subject matter, the claimant’s residence and the respondent’s location, together with any other relevant circumstances identified in Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Practice Direction 54C.

Where the principal geographical connections are evenly balanced, factors such as the parties’ reasons for preferring a venue, travel and cost, continuity of representation, legal expertise, court capacity and likely hearing time must be weighed. The fact that lawyers are based in London should not ordinarily determine venue, but it may do so where it forms part of a wider combination of particular factors. Efficient court administration is relevant but may be outweighed by representation, cost and practical considerations.

The claimant brought a statutory appeal in the Administrative Court against decisions made by the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee. The appeal was filed in London. An Administrative Court lawyer issued a minded-to-transfer order proposing transfer to Leeds because the claimant lived in Wakefield and no reason had been given for filing in London.

Both parties opposed transfer. The claimant’s counsel and the respondent’s in-house legal representatives were based in London. The issue was whether the appeal had its closest connection with the North-Eastern region, where the claimant lived, or the London region, where the respondent was based and the relevant hearing and legal representation were located.

1. Outcome. The claim was directed to remain in the London region.
2. Under Practice Direction 54C, the court had to identify the region with which the claim was most closely connected, having regard principally to the subject matter, the claimant’s residence and the respondent’s location. The appeal had substantial connections with both Leeds and London, and neither region could be said to have the closer connection on those factors.
3. The court then considered the additional circumstances in paragraph 2.5. Public-interest, related-claim and devolution factors did not apply. The availability of video-link attendance was neutral because suitable facilities existed in both regions. Court workload and the possibility of an earlier hearing in Leeds favoured transfer slightly.
4. The parties’ stated reasons, travel and cost, and the location of their representatives favoured London. The claimant had been represented by London-based counsel at the underlying fitness to practise hearing, making continuity beneficial to both her and the court. The respondent’s use of London-based in-house counsel reflected cost and expertise considerations. Those factors limited the parties’ decision-making autonomy as to legal representation, but justified retaining the London venue in this case.
5. R (Thakor, aka Parmar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin) established that instructing London counsel should not ordinarily drive a London venue. That guidance did not prevent London being retained where, as here, particular factors justified the original venue and its continuation. The court also relied on the concept of the parties’ decision-making autonomy described in R (Airedale Chemical Company Ltd) v HMRC [2022] EWHC 2937 (Admin).

The judgment concerned venue in a statutory appeal brought in the Administrative Court. The appeal had been filed in London, and a minded-to-transfer order proposed transfer to Leeds. No lower court judgment or prior appellate decision is stated.