Andrezej Szczurkowski, R (on the application of) v Director of Legal Aid Casework

Venue for judicial review proceedings should ordinarily be determined by the region with which the claim has the closest connection. The court must assess the claimant’s location, the defendant’s location and the subject matter, then weigh the additional circumstances identified in CPR PD 54C. Relevant considerations include representatives’ locations and costs, court resources, likely expedition, and whether related proceedings should be administered by the same court. A claim may properly remain in London where the connection is evenly balanced and related proceedings are already being administered there, despite the claimant residing in another region.

The claimant challenged the defendant’s decision to grant legal help rather than a certificate for full or investigative representation. He issued the judicial review claim in London, although he lived in Leeds. A minded-to-transfer order proposed transfer to the Leeds Administrative Court on the basis of regional connection and London’s workload.

Both parties opposed transfer. They relied on the defendant’s London location, the location of their legal representatives, and the alleged overlap with R (Janicki) v Director of Legal Aid Casework, another claim concerning legal aid funding for trafficking victims. The issue was which region had the closest connection and where the claim should be administered.

1. Outcome. The claim was to remain in the London region.
2. Under CPR PD 54C, the court had to determine the region with which the claim was most closely connected by considering the subject matter, the claimant’s residence, and the location of the defendant or relevant department. Those factors connected the claim both with Leeds and with London. They did not make either region more closely connected than the other.
3. The court then considered the further circumstances in paragraph 2.5. Factors concerning public interest in locality and devolution did not apply. The availability of video-link or other alternative attendance arrangements was neutral. Court workload and the prospect of faster progress favoured Leeds slightly.
4. The decisive considerations favoured London. Both parties’ representatives were based there, and avoiding travel costs was relevant, particularly because one representative was a charity and the other a public body. The claimant could attend by video-link or through a hybrid hearing if necessary.
5. More persuasively, the claim raised issues sufficiently similar to those in Janicki that it was desirable for both claims to be administered by the same court. This would be logistically easier and promote consistent decision-making, even if the claims were not formally managed or determined together.
6. The court made no binding decision on joint case management, but considered it inappropriate to defer the venue decision. A prompt determination was required so that permission and any joint case-management issues could be progressed using the resources of the appropriate court.

This was a first-instance judicial review venue determination. The claim was issued in London on 20 December 2024. A minded-to-transfer order was made on 8 January 2025, followed by written submissions from both parties. The court declined to transfer the claim and directed that it remain in London.