[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> MIA & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors (Determination as to Venue [2025] EWHC 598 (Admin) (14 March 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/598.html Cite as: [2025] EWHC 598 (Admin)

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		14/03/2025

Introduction

1. This is a judicial determination on the papers, but where it is appropriate to give reasons by way of a short judgment. It addresses the issue of where this claim should be administered and determined.

The procedural history

2. By a claim form filed with the court on 23 July 2024 the Claimants seek judicial review of decisions or actions dated 23 April 2024 relating to the confiscation of their belongings including their mobile telephones and clothing, and the First Defendant's policies in relation to the same.
3. The Claimants filed the claim in London. In answer to question 4.6 on the claim form, "Have you issued this claim in the region with which you have the closest connection?", the Claimants answered "Yes".
4. On 24 July 2024 a minded to transfer order ("MTTO") was made. This is a mechanism by which the Court invites and considers "the views of the parties" before any finalised decision to transfer the claim: see the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2024 at paragraph 7.7.5. The MTTO was made by Martin Lee, Administrative Court Lawyer, in the exercise of powers delegated by the President of the Queen's Bench Division under CPR 54.1A; see also the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2024 at paragraph 13.4.5.10.
5. The MTTO recorded that Mr Lee was minded to transfer the case to Manchester in light of the following:

"The claimant has ticked in Section 4, N461 that the claim has been filed in the region with which the claimant has the closest connection…that does not appear to be accurate: the claimants are in Manchester (and are said to have claims there already). This early notification also enables the defendant to instruct Counsel in the Manchester area if they see fit".

6. Mr Lee cited the cases of R (Fortt) v FSO Ltd [2022] EWHC 152 (Admin) and R (Smart) v Secretary of State for Justice [2022] EWHC 509 (Admin). In those cases Fordham J had transferred cases that had been commenced in London to, respectively, Manchester and Leeds.
7. The MTTO gave the parties liberty to indicate opposition to transfer by way of written submissions within 7 days. The parties provided submissions on 31 July 2024. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, the submissions on the MTTO were not referred to me for determination until 20 February 2025.
8. As the Second and Third Defendants were joined to the claim after the MTTO was made they did not provide submissions on it within the timescale set by the MTTO. However, they were permitted to do so before this judgment was finalised.

The legal framework

9. CPR PD 54C is intended to facilitate access to justice by enabling cases to be administered and determined in the most appropriate location: paragraph 1.1.
10. It explains that the administration of the Administrative Court is organised by geographical area; and that, in addition to the central Administrative Court Office at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, there are Administrative Court Offices in Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds and Manchester. Claims on the North-Eastern Circuit are administered from (and should be filed in) Leeds and claims on the Northern Circuit are administered from (and should be filed in) Manchester: paragraph 1.2(1).
11. The Administrative Court applies the principle that "where a claim has a specific connection to a region (by subject matter, location of the claimant or defendant or otherwise) it should, if at all possible, be administered and determined in that region": paragraph 1.2(2).
12. PD 54C makes provision for certain "excepted classes of claim" at paragraph 3.1. In all other cases, proceedings should be commenced "at the Administrative Court office for the region with which the claim is most closely connected, having regard to the subject matter of the claim, the location of the claimant, or the defendant, or otherwise": paragraph 2.1.
13. Paragraph 2.5 reiterates the "general expectation" that "proceedings will be administered and determined in the region with which the claim has the closest connection". This will be determined "having regard to the subject matter of the claim, the region in which the claimant resides and the region in which the defendant or any relevant office or department of the defendant is based". In addition, the court may consider any or all other relevant circumstances including the following:

"(a) any reason expressed by any party for preferring a particular venue;

(b) the ease and cost of travel to a hearing;

(c) the availability and suitability of alternative means of attending a hearing (for example, by video-link);

(d) the extent and nature of any public interest that the proceedings be heard in any particular locality;

(e) the time within which it is appropriate for the proceedings to be determined;

(f) whether it is desirable to administer or determine the claim in another region in the light of the volume of claims issued at, and the capacity, resources and workload of, the court at which it is issued;

(g) whether the claim raises issues sufficiently similar to those in another outstanding claim to make it desirable that it should be determined together with, or immediately following, that other claim;

(h) whether the claim raises devolution issues and for that reason whether it should more appropriately be determined in London or Cardiff; and

(i) the region in which the legal representative[s] of the parties are based".

Submissions and decision

14. The Claimants' solicitors contend that the claim should remain in London. All three Defendants agree with that course.
15. It is necessary to determine the region with which the claim is "most closely connected" by reference to the factors set out in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.5.
16. The "region in which the claimant resides" is the Manchester region, to the extent that the Claimants were living there when the claim was commenced. However, as their solicitor's submissions on the MTTO highlighted, they reside in temporary accommodation provided by the First Defendant under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 95 and are subject to transfer to alternative accommodation elsewhere in the UK.
17. Further, the claim itself concerns the Claimants' arrival in Dover and their detention at Manston short-term holding facility, both of which are in the south-east of England. The material facts occurred within the Second Defendant's policing jurisdiction, again in the south-east.
18. As to the "region in which the defendant or any relevant office or department of the defendant is based" the First and Third Defendants are national organisations albeit based in London. The Second Defendant is based in the south-east.
19. These factors indicate that the claim is "most closely connected" with the south-east region.
20. Application of the other factors in paragraph 2.5 also supports the claim remaining in London.
21. Factor (g) applies, because the Claimants initially sought an order that the claims were case managed and heard together with a series of other claims that were being administered in London. Eight such claims were identified which advanced similar grounds to those in these claims. These have relatively recently been settled, having been administered throughout in London.
22. As a related point, it is apparent from the court file that this claim is also currently being actively case managed in London: there are a series of interlocutory applications before the court which were the subject of an order by Eyre J sealed on 3 March 2025.
23. It is preferable for claims which raise similar issues to be managed from the same court, as factor (g) recognises.
24. As to (i), the Claimants' solicitors and counsel across the entire cohort of claims are based in London. The Second and Third Defendants have instructed counsel based in London. Keeping the claim in London, does, therefore, render the ease of travel to a hearing greater and the cost of doing so less (factor (b)).
25. Factor (a) has been addressed above.
26. Factor (c) is neutral because both London and Manchester have alternative means of attending a hearing (for example, by video-link) available.
27. Factors (d), (e), (f) and (h) are not particularly relevant here.

Conclusion

28. For all these reasons, this claim should remain in London.