Lindsey Smith, R (on the application of) v The Football Association Limited

Under CPR PD 54C, a judicial review claim should generally be administered and determined in the region with which it has the closest connection. The court assesses that connection by considering the claim’s subject matter, the claimant’s residence, the defendant’s location and other relevant circumstances.

Relevant circumstances may include the parties’ venue preferences, travel costs, available hearing technology, public interest, court capacity and workload, related proceedings, devolution issues and the location of legal representatives. A claim concerning a decision with nationwide effects may have no particular local subject-matter connection. The court must nevertheless balance the remaining factors and identify the most appropriate region.

The claimant brought judicial review proceedings concerning the Football Association’s decision that Premier League players could wear rainbow-coloured images as part of the Rainbow Laces campaign.

The claim was issued in the South-Eastern region. A minded-to-transfer order proposed transferring it to the North-Eastern region because the claimant lived in Newcastle upon Tyne and the claim had nationwide effects. The claimant opposed transfer, the defendant was neutral and the interested party made no submissions.

The issue was which region had the closest connection under CPR PD 54C, having regard to the claimant’s residence, the parties’ locations, the subject matter and other relevant circumstances.

1. The claim was to remain in the South-Eastern region and be administered and determined there.

2. The court applied CPR PD 54C paragraphs 2.1 and 2.5. The relevant inquiry is the region with which the claim is most closely connected, having regard to the subject matter, the claimant’s residence, the defendant’s location and any other relevant circumstances.

3. The claimant’s residence connected the claim with the North-Eastern region. However, the decision under challenge had nationwide effects, so the subject matter did not favour a particular locality. The Football Association and the interested party were based in the South-Eastern region.

4. The location of the parties’ legal representatives and the claimant’s evidence that travel to London would be cheaper and easier than requiring three legal teams to travel to Leeds were relevant considerations. Video-link facilities were available in both regions and were therefore neutral. The public interest did not require a particular venue. Court volume, capacity, resources and workload were also neutral. Other specified factors did not apply.

5. The balance of the relevant factors favoured the South-Eastern region. The court therefore declined to transfer the claim.