James Kenny-Levick, R (on the application of) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

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 claim’s subject matter, the claimant’s residence, the defendant’s location and other relevant circumstances. Those circumstances include convenience, travel costs, hearing arrangements, public interest, court capacity, related proceedings, devolution issues and the location of legal representatives. The claimant’s residence is important but is not necessarily decisive. A claim may properly be transferred to another region where the subject matter, the parties’ locations and practical considerations establish a closer connection.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s misconduct decision. He issued the claim in London, although his claim form stated that he lived in Sheffield. An Administrative Court Lawyer made a minded-to-transfer order, proposing transfer to the Northern region because of the claimant’s residence and the location of his solicitors. Before the parties’ submissions opposing transfer were considered, the claim was transferred to Manchester.

Both parties then submitted that the claim should be administered and determined in London. The issue was which region had the closest connection under CPR PD 54C.

1. Disposition. The claim was transferred back to London for administration and determination.
2. Under CPR PD 54C, claims should, where possible, be administered and determined in the region with which they have a specific or closest connection. The assessment requires consideration of the subject matter, the claimant’s residence, the defendant’s location and any other relevant circumstances.
3. The claimant’s residence was in Sheffield, within the North-Eastern region. Accordingly, a transfer based solely on residence would have pointed to Leeds rather than Manchester. Residence was not, however, decisive in the overall assessment.
4. The claimant worked in London, the defendant and the defendant’s legal team were based there, and the subject matter concerned a London conduct process. Those matters established the closest connection with the South-Eastern region. The solicitors’ location in Manchester was the only material connection with Manchester.
5. The factors concerning party preferences, convenience and travel, and representatives’ locations supported London. Video-link availability was neutral. Public interest was likely to favour London, while court capacity, timing, related proceedings and devolution issues were not determinative or did not apply.

The judgment was a first-instance determination on venue. The claim was issued in London, a minded-to-transfer order proposed transfer to the Northern region, and the claim was transferred to Manchester before the parties’ submissions were considered. The High Court ordered transfer back to London.