[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 >> Smith, R (On the Application Of) v The Football Association Ltd (Determination as to Venue) [2025] EWHC 686 (Admin) (20 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/686.html Cite as: [2025] EWHC 686 (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 12 February 2025 Claimant seeks judicial review of the Defendant's decision dated 12 November 2024 that, as part of the "Rainbow Laces" campaign, players in Premier League matches should be permitted and/or supported by the Defendant to wear images including the rainbow colours, including on the laces in their football boots and on armbands, where applicable.
3. The Claimant had filed the claim in South-Eastern Region 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". No further reasons for that decision were given.
4. On 13 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 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 the Administrative Court Lawyer was minded to transfer the case to the North-Eastern Region in light of the following:

"Although the claimant has ticked in section 4, N461 that the claim has been filed in the region with which the claim has the closest connection that does not appear to be accurate: the claimant is in Newcastle upon Tyne (not London). It is inappropriate to fail to utilise Court resources in the region and to over-burden the London Court, particularly without providing any justification. The case concerns matters affecting every part of England and Wales".

6. Mr Lee also cited R (Thakor, aka Parmar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin). There, Fordham J transferred a claim for judicial review relating to a decision of the Secretary of State refusing the Appellant's further asylum and human rights submissions from London to Leeds. The position of both parties had been that the claim should remain in London as they had instructed London counsel and any hearing in Leeds would involve additional burdens as to time and cost and could impact on availability.
7. The MTTO gave the parties liberty to indicate opposition to transfer by way of written submissions within 7 days. The Claimant and Defendant provided submissions on 14 and 19 February 2025.

The legal framework

8. 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.
9. 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).
10. 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).
11. 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.
12. 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

13. The Claimant has contended that the claim should remain in the South-Eastern region, namely the Administrative Court sitting in London. The Defendant is neutral. The Interested Party made no submissions on the issue.
14. 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.
15. The "region in which the claimant resides" is the North-Eastern region: that is where the Claimant lives.
16. However, the "subject matter of the claim" is a decision made by the Defendant which has nationwide effects, as the MTTP recognised.
17. As to the "region in which the defendant or any relevant office or department of the defendant is based", that is the South-Eastern region. The Interested Party is also based there.
18. As to the other factors in paragraph 2.5, under (a), the Claimant's submissions make the points in the two preceding paragraphs. The further primary reason expressed by the Claimant in support of the claim remaining in London relates to the locations of all the parties' legal representatives.
19. The solicitors and counsel representing the Claimant are based in London. According to their Acknowledgments of Service the Defendant has instructed solicitors and counsel based in London. The Claimant is willing to travel to London for hearings in the claim. It is cheaper and easier for her to do so than for three legal teams to travel to Leeds. That is a relevant factor under (b) and (i).
20. Under (c), the courts in London and in Leeds both have video-link hearing facilities should they be needed and so this is neutral.
21. Under (d), although there is an element of public interest in this case, that is not such that the proceedings should be heard in any particular locality.
22. Under (f), the volume of claims, capacity, resources and workload of both the Leeds and London courts is presently neutral in terms of venue determination decisions.
23. Factors (e), (g) and (h) do not apply.

Conclusion

24. For all these reasons, I conclude that this claim should remain in the South-Eastern region and be administered from and determined there.