BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[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 >> ES, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Determination as to Venue) [2025] EWHC 1377 (Admin) (04 June 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1377.html
Cite as: [2025] EWHC 1377 (Admin)

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

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 1377 (Admin)
Case No: AC-2025-LON-000441

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

04/06/2025

B e f o r e :

MRS JUSTICE HILL DBE
____________________

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

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Defendant

____________________

Duncan Lewis for the Claimant
Government Legal Department for the Defendant

____________________

HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT
DETERMINATION AS TO VENUE
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    This judgment was handed down remotely at 2:00pm on 4 June 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
    .............................

    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.
  2. The procedural history

  3. By a claim issued on 12 February 2025 the Claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant's decisions dated 17 January 2025, 22 January 2025 and 11 February 2025, relating to directions for removal to Eritrea and as to trafficking.
  4. The Claimant filed the claim in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). It was then transferred to the Administrative Court because the Upper Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim.
  5. 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 King's Bench Division under CPR 54.1A; see also the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2024 at paragraph 13.4.5.10.
  6. The MTTO recorded that Mr Lee was minded to transfer the case to the Northern Region in Manchester light of the following:
  7. "The claim has been transferred from the Upper Tribunal because it lacks jurisdiction to determine this claim. It has been transferred to the London office but should have been transferred to the Manchester office (where the claimant is currently detained). R (Thakor / Parmar) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin)"

  8. The MTTO gave the parties liberty to indicate opposition to transfer by way of written submissions within 7 days. The Claimant provided submissions on 20 February 2025. The Defendant set out her position on the MTTO as part of her summary grounds for defending the claim on 21 February 2025.
  9. The case was referred to me for a determination of venue on 14 May 2025.
  10. On receipt of the draft judgment the Defendant's solicitors informed the court that the issues in the claim have narrowed, such that the focus of the claim is now the decision of 17 January 2025. Although in her summary grounds the Defendant had contended that the court should consider the application for permission for judicial review prior to any issue of transfer, by her solicitor's email dated 4 June 2025 she confirmed that she concurred with my decision with respect to venue.
  11. The legal framework

  12. 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.
  13. 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).
  14. 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).
  15. 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.
  16. 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:
  17. "(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

  18. 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.
  19. Mr Lee was right to acknowledge that this claim has a connection with the Northern region because according to the claim form, the Claimant was detained at HMP Manchester and thus was resident in the region. The Defendant decision-maker is based in Liverpool.
  20. There is also a need under paragraph 2.5, factor (f) to have regard to the capacity, resources and workload of the London court, and to transfer cases to the regions in pursuance of that objective, where appropriate.
  21. However, in my judgment the following factors militate in favour of the case remaining in London.
  22. First, the Claimant could be transferred by the Defendant to a different prison, or immigration detention centre, and so become resident in another region during the currency of the claim.
  23. Second, there are no other specific factors to connect the claim with the Northern region; and there are factors which link it to London: the First Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) hearings in the Claimant's case took place in London; and the legal representatives for both parties are based in London, which is relevant under (i) in paragraph 2.5.
  24. Third, under (a), the Claimant is keen for the case to remain in London. He is unlikely to have to give evidence at the hearing. He has indicated that if he is required to attend the hearing, or decides to do so, he would be content to travel to London, as he did for the First Tier Tribunal hearings. As noted at [8] above, the Defendant is also content for the claim to remain in London.
  25. Fourth, while I cannot accept Duncan Lewis Solicitors' assertion that a journey to Manchester from London involves "immense" travelling time, the cost of the Claimant travelling to London will be less than that for all the legal representatives travelling to Manchester. This is a relevant factor under (b), especially as the Claimant is in receipt of public funding and the Defendant is a public body.
  26. Factor (c) is neutral as both London and Manchester have video-link hearing facilities should they be needed; and factors (d), (e), (g) and (h) do not apply.
  27. Conclusion

  28. For all these reasons, I have concluded that this claim should remain in London and should be administered and determined there.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010