BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Cleugh, R (On the Application Of) v North Tyneside Council (Re Determination as to Venue) [2023] EWHC 374 (Admin) (24 February 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/374.html
Cite as: [2023] EWHC 374 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EWHC 374 (Admin)
Case No: CO/41/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
SITTING IN MANCHESTER

Date of Issue: Wednesday, 22nd February 2023
24th February 2023

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE FORDHAM
____________________

Between:
THE KING (on the application of
DARRYL CLEUGH)
Claimant
- and -

NORTH TYNESIDE COUNCIL
Defendant

____________________

The Claimant in person
____________________

HTML VERSION OF DETERMINATION AS TO VENUE
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    .............................
    THE HON. MR JUSTICE FORDHAM

    MR JUSTICE FORDHAM:

  1. This is a judicial determination on the papers, but where it is, in my judgment, appropriate to give reasons by way of a short judgment. This is a claim for judicial review in which a minded to transfer order ("MTTO") to the Administrative Court in Leeds (the North-Eastern region) was made, stamped on 30 January 2023. The Claimant had filed the claim in the Administrative Court in Manchester (the North-Western region) and had answered "no" to the question in Form N461: "Have you issued this claim in the region with which the claim is most closely connected?" His stated "reasons" were:
  2. Bias and prejudice in a previous hearing whether the local court found in favour of a perpetrator following undue influence from [the] local authority.
  3. The MTTO gave reasons for a transfer to Manchester and gave the parties 7 days to file representations objecting to that course. The Defendant has filed no objections to the transfer. I have read the Claimant's objections to the transfer, contained in an email dated 6 February 2023. In essence, he puts forward as objections to transfer are: (1) that he is the victim of harassment and data protection breaches; (2) that he would like to call Manchester-based witnesses to give evidence at the judicial review hearing; and (3) that he would find it difficult to travel to Leeds.
  4. The claim for judicial review (filed on 6 January 2023) is a challenge to a homelessness decision letter dated 24 October 2022. The Court is not at this stage dealing with permission for judicial review. The Court is only dealing with Venue.
  5. It is, in my judgment, clear that the region with which the claim is most closely connected is the North-Eastern region (Leeds). The Claimant was right to recognise in his Form N461 that the North-Western region (Manchester) was not. In my judgment, it is also clear that the case should be dealt with in Leeds. The High Court in Leeds will be able to deal with any and all relevant issues. I cannot accept that what is now, and belatedly, said about Manchester-based witnesses or difficulty in travelling to Leeds constitutes any good or convincing reason where the case should not be dealt with from that Court, which is where it belongs. I will make the transfer order.
  6. 22.2.23


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/374.html