MIA & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors (Venue Determination)

The Administrative Court should ordinarily administer and determine a claim in the region with which it has the closest connection. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must have regard to the subject matter of the claim, the claimant’s residence, the defendant’s location and any other relevant circumstances identified in Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Practice Direction 54C. Relevant considerations may include related proceedings, existing case management, representation, travel, cost and remote attendance. A claimant’s residence in temporary accommodation may carry reduced weight where relocation is possible. The court may retain proceedings in London where the material events and parties’ connections point to the south-east, and London is already managing related or connected claims.

The claimants sought judicial review of decisions and actions concerning the confiscation of their belongings, including mobile telephones and clothing, and of related departmental policies. They issued the claim in London. An Administrative Court lawyer made a minded-to-transfer order proposing transfer to Manchester because the claimants were then located there. The parties opposed transfer, and the court was required to determine the region with which the claim was most closely connected under Practice Direction 54C. The central issue was whether the claim should be transferred to Manchester or remain in London.

1. Outcome. The claim should remain in London.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Practice Direction 54C, the court must determine the region with which a claim is most closely connected by reference to the subject matter, the claimant’s residence, the defendant’s location and other relevant circumstances. The general expectation is that proceedings will be administered and determined in that region, where possible.
3. The claimant’s residence was a factor favouring Manchester, but it carried limited weight because the claimants lived in temporary accommodation provided under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and could be transferred elsewhere. The claim’s subject matter instead connected it to the south-east: the claimants arrived in Dover, were detained at Manston, and the material events occurred within Kent Police’s jurisdiction.
4. The other relevant factors supported London. Related claims raising similar issues had been administered there, and the present claim was already being actively case managed in London. The parties’ legal representatives and counsel were based in London, making attendance easier and less costly. Video-link facilities were available in both regions, and the remaining factors were of little relevance.