Location, location, location: Determining the venue for a claim in the Administrative Court.
The case of Bhimsinhji & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Determination as to Venue) deals with important considerations for anyone dealing with issues regarding the venue for hearings, local courts, and best practice to avoid unnecessary costs – particularly in respect of judicial review cases.
CPR (PD 54C, 2.1 and 2.5) provides that, expect for some classes of claim, the general expectation is that proceedings will be administered and determined in the region with which the claim has the closest connection when possible, decided by considering the focus of the claim, the area in which the Claimant lives and the area in which the Defendant or any relevant office or department of the Defendant is based.
In the case of Bhimsinhji & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Determination as to Venue) [2022] EWHC 2556, there was a claim for judicial review of a decision made by the Secretary of State whereby she refused the Claimant’s further asylum and human rights submissions. The claim had been filed in the Administrative Court Office in London.
Following a minded to transfer order, Mr Justice Fordham transferred the claim to the Administrative Court in Leeds – to the objection of both the Claimant and the Defendant. This was one of many cases in 2022 in which Mr Justice Fordham made this decision, and he echoed the point that had been made in these other cases: where the Claimant lives is the most suitable venue for the hearing. In this case, the Claimant lives in Leeds and the hearing should, accordingly, be in Leeds. It should not be in London simply to avoid the additional cost and time resulting from instructing solicitors and Counsel in London, which were the reasons given by both the Claimant and Defendant.
While avoiding unnecessary costs is one of the main aims of the CPR in general, this is not always a persuasive argument in and of itself for filing a claim in London. If there is a desire for a case that does not strictly have its closest connection to the South-East to be heard at the Administrative Court Office in London, then specific and convincing reasons will have to be provided. For example, in R (OAO Group For Action on Leeds Bradford Airport) v Secretary of State for Transport [2022], Mr Justice Fordham decided not to order a transfer to Leeds because the case raised issues similar to those raised in separate proceedings that had already been issued in London and the intention was to have the two cases dealt with together.
These outcomes, and others like them, clearly show the courts desire to emphasise the importance of local justice being administered in the regional Administrative Courts. If nothing else, it has proven difficult for parties to establish a case should be heard in London and regard to this should be taken into account before the additional costs incurred in disputing a local hearing are incurred.
How can PIC help?
At PIC we have a dedicated team of dispute resolution specialists with experience in many areas, including Judicial Review and dealing with the costs arising from these proceedings. If you wish to discuss any costs issues or have a subject you would like covered, please do contact us.
Jess Clarkson, Trainee Law Costs Draftsperson
23.03.2023