AXN, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Venue Determination)

Under CPR PD 54C, a judicial review claim should generally be administered and determined in the region with which it has the closest connection. That assessment requires consideration of the claim’s subject matter, the claimant’s residence, and the defendant’s location, together with all other relevant circumstances. Relevant circumstances include the parties’ reasons for preferring a venue, travel costs, access arrangements, court capacity and workload, and the location of legal representatives. The closest connection is not decisive in every case. Practical litigation costs, public funding, charitable status, and reasonable adjustments may justify retaining a claim in another region. The court must undertake an overall evaluative assessment rather than apply an inflexible geographical rule.

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal of re-entry into Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract support. The claim was issued in the South Eastern Region, although the claimant resided in Leeds. A minded to transfer order proposed transferring the claim to the North Eastern Region, referring to the claimant’s location, court resources and the decision in R (Thakor / Parmer) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin). The claimant opposed transfer, relying on the London location of his legal representatives and the reasonable adjustments required for hearings. The central issue was which region was most closely connected with the claim and whether the wider factors favoured transfer.

1. Venue. The claim was to remain in London.
2. CPR PD 54C requires the court to identify the region with which the claim is most closely connected, having regard principally to the claim’s subject matter, the claimant’s residence, and the location of the defendant or relevant department. The general expectation is that claims will be administered and determined in that region.
3. The claimant resided in Leeds, giving the claim a North Eastern connection. The subject matter concerned support governed by national policy and guidance. The defendant and interested party operated nationally but were based in London. The resulting connection with Leeds was therefore real but relatively loose.
4. The court also considered London’s volume of claims, capacity, resources and workload. Those matters supported transfer to Leeds. However, the claimant’s London-based solicitors and counsel would face greater travel costs if the claim were transferred. The public funding of the claimant and defendant, and the charitable status of the interested party, made those costs significant.
5. The claimant’s counsel required particular reasonable adjustments for hearings. Although the court hoped that Leeds could provide them, the adjustments had previously been arranged without difficulty at the Royal Courts of Justice. That factor also favoured retaining the claim in London.
6. The assessment under CPR PD 54C was consequently finely balanced. The factors favouring London prevailed, and the claim remained in London.

Not stated in the judgment.