THIS ACTION IS GOING TO YORKSHIRE: CHOICE OF LONDON LAWYERS DOES NOT DRIVE CHOICE OF VENUE

In SK Enterprises (UK) Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Re Determination as to Venue) [2025] EWHC 237 (Admin) Mrs Justice Hill held that an action in the Administrative Court should be transferred to Leeds. The fact that the claimant issued in London, and London solicitors and counsel were instructed, was far from being decisive, or even persuasive.

“… instructing London counsel “ought not…normally ‘drive’ a London choice of venue becoming self-fulfilling”.”

THE CASE

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision revoking its licence to sponsor workers.  The decision related to the defendant’s sites in or around Leeds.  The action was issued in London. The Administrative Costs Officer indicated that the Court was minded to transfer the matter to Leeds.  The parties were given permission to make submissions. The claimant’s submissions were that the matter should stay in London because both the solicitors and barrister dealing with the matter were based in London.

THE JUDGMENT ON VENUE

The judge did not accept the claimant’s submissions.  She held that Leeds was the appropriate venue.

1. 1. 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. 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).

1. 1. 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).

1. 1. 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.

1. 1. 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 certain listed factors.^[1]

Submissions and decision

1. 1. The Claimant has asked that the claim remain in London because both the solicitors and barristers acting for the Claimant are based in London, such that a hearing in London would significantly reduce travel time and associated costs for the legal representatives, ensuring the efficient conduct of the proceedings. Reliance is placed on paragraph 2.5(b) and (i) of PD 54C.

1. 1. The Defendant has not opposed transfer, indicating that she adopts a neutral position on the issue.

1. 1. However, the factors set out in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.5 show that the region with which the claim is “most closely connected” is the North-Eastern region.

1. 1. This is the “region in which the claimant resides” in that the Claimant’s business address as given at section 1 of the claim form is in Leeds. According to the statement of facts and grounds at [4], the Claimant initially operated at two sites known as Orchard and Otley Road and now has three further branches in Cathill, Girlington and Elford Grove. All these locations appear to be within an hour’s drive of Leeds.

1. 1. The “subject matter of the claim” relates to the Claimant’s staff at the Cathill branch: statement of facts and grounds at [5].

1. 1. As to the “region in which the defendant or any relevant office or department of the defendant is based”, although the Defendant was served in London, it has offices around the country. The decision under challenge was made by a decision-maker based in Sheffield: see pp.38-52 of the Claimant’s bundle.

1. 1. Against this starting point is the Claimant’s expressed desire for the claim to remain in London because it has chosen to instruct lawyers in London.

1. 1. In respect of PD 54C, paragraph 2.5(b), I accept that travel between London and Leeds will be needed if the Claimant retains the same lawyers and there are cost and time implications to consider. However, travel between London and Leeds can be done with ease, and without requiring an overnight stay for a one-day hearing. As the Claimant is based in Leeds their own travel time and costs would be reduced by the claim being heard in Leeds.

1. 1. Moreover, as Fordham J highlighted in R (Airedale Chemical Company Ltd) v HMRC [2022] EWHC 2937 (Admin) at [3], the parties have “decision-making autonomy” as to which lawyers to instruct. As he said in Thakor at [2], instructing London counsel “ought not…normally ‘drive’ a London choice of venue becoming self-fulfilling”.

1. 1. The Defendant has not yet instructed counsel: see the Acknowledgment of Service, section 6.

1. 1. Under paragraph 2.5(c), Leeds has video-link hearing facilities should they be needed.

1. 1. All these factors point strongly in favour of the claim, if at all possible, being administered and determined in the North-Eastern region and the “general expectation” that that would occur, given the terms of PD 54C, paragraphs 1.2(2) and 2.5.

1. 1. This is a claim that can be administered and determined in the North-Eastern region. The regional Administrative Court has a team of ticketed specialist judges as well as visiting High Court Judges who sit in the region each court term.

Conclusion

1. For all these reasons, I have concluded that this claim should be transferred to the North-Eastern region to be administered and determined in Leeds