[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 >> Bandla, R (On the Application Of) v Harwood Group Practice (Determination as to Venue) [2025] EWHC 685 (Admin) (20 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/685.html Cite as: [2025] EWHC 685 (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
		20/03/2025

This judgment was handed down remotely at 11.30am on 20^th March 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives. ............................. MRS JUSTICE HILL

Mrs Justice Hill:

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 issued on 14 February 2025 the Claimant seeks judicial review of the Defendant's decision dated 12 December 2024 refusal to issue a medical fitness certificate.
3. The Claimant filed the claim in in the Manchester Administrative Court. 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 Claimant answered "yes" on the following basis:

"1. Convenience of the Parties

• Holding proceedings in a region where both parties live, work, or conduct business reduces unnecessary travel and logistical difficulties.

2. Availability of Key Evidence and Witnesses

• Courts consider whether evidence (documents, physical items, or digital records) is more accessible in the requested region.

• If witnesses (experts, employees, or local authorities) are in the area, moving the case elsewhere may cause delays or complications.".

4. On 25 February 2025 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 Laura McMullan, 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 the Administrative Court Lawyer was minded to transfer the case to the South Eastern Region in light of the following:

"The claimant and defendant are based in the North West region and it would appear at first sight that the claim has been filed in the appropriate region. However paragraph 2.5 of CPR PD 54C allows the Court to consider all relevant circumstances in deciding where a claim should be determined and in particular paragraph 2.5(g) allows for consideration as to "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." This claim challenges the alleged refusal by the defendant to provide documentation which the claimant states is required for a claim that the claimant has brought against a third party. That claim is being determined by the Administrative Court in the South East region. I consider it would be more appropriate for this claim to be considered in the same region, and if possible, by the same Judge as the claim already progressing in the South East region.".

6. The MTTO gave the parties liberty to indicate opposition to transfer by way of written submissions within 7 days. The Claimant provided submissions on 25 February 2025.

The legal framework

7. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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

12. The Claimant has contended that the claim should remain in Manchester. The Defendant has made no submissions on the issue.
13. 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.
14. The "region in which the claimant resides" is the Northern Circuit region: the Claimant lives in Bolton, Lancashire.
15. The "subject matter of the claim" is a dispute that has arisen between the Claimant and his GP practice.
16. The "region in which the defendant or any relevant office or department of the defendant is based" is also the Northern Circuit region: the Defendant is also based in Bolton.
17. Based on these factors the claim is "most closely connected" with the Northern Circuit region.
18. As to the other factors in paragraph 2.5, under (a), the primary reasons expressed in the Claimant's submissions relate to cost and convenience, as noted on the claim form. Both parties represent themselves and would incur additional cost and inconvenience if they had to travel to London for hearings. This is a relevant factor under (b).
19. Factors (c), (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i) are either neutral or do not apply.
20. Under (g), the MTTO was quite right to raise the fact that this claim relates directly to another claim being brought in London. Normally that would be a highly persuasive factor in favour of transfer. However, I am persuaded that transfer need not occur given (i) the factors in paragraph 17 above; and (ii) the fact that the existence of this claim can be noted on the court's system in London. I also note from the most recent correspondence with the court that the claim appears to be close to resolution.

Conclusion

21. For all these reasons, I have concluded that this claim should remain in Manchester.