THIS CASE IS STAYING IN LONDON: (IT TOOK FROM 2ND JULY 2024 TO 14TH JANUARY 2025 FOR SUBMISSIONS TO BE PLACED BEFORE A JUDGE)

Since I wrote about a decision transferring Administrative Court proceedings to Leeds it is appropriate that we look at a decision today ordering that the proceedings stay in London despite it having closer ties to Manchester.  In Weis, R (On the Application Of) v Commissioners for HMRC (Re Determination as to Venue) [2025] EWHC 249 (Admin) Mrs Justice Hill determined that the proceeding should stay in London. What is also interesting about the case, however, is that the fact that submissions filed in early July 2024 were not placed before a judge until 14th January 2025.   This was an alarming delay. It played a part in the overall decision. (One can imagine the judicial reaction if this type of delay had happened in a legal firm and a party was then seeking relief from sanctions….).

“I am conscious that this determination on venue has been delayed through no fault of the parties: due to an administrative oversight their submissions dated 1 and 2 July 2024 were not placed before a judge for determination until 14 January 2025”

THE CASE

The judge was considering issues of venue in judicial review proceedings relating to income tax. The claimant lived in Salford and the court’s provisional view was that the action should be transferred to Manchester. Both parties filed submissions arguing that the case should remain in London.

THE JUDGMENT ON VENUE

1. 1. The Claimant has reiterated the reasons given at section 4.6 of the claim form, and highlighted that the ultimate outcome in the Airedale case was that the final hearing was due to take place in London. The Defendant would prefer the case to remain in London “for the convenience of the parties and their representatives who are based here”.

1. 1. 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 Northern region. This is the “region in which the claimant resides”, because he lives in Salford. The “subject matter of the claim” is his treatment as an individual for income tax purposes, based on his domicile or residence. As to the “region in which the defendant or any relevant office or department of the defendant is based”, although HMRC was served in London, it has offices nationwide: Airedale at [3]. Its website makes clear that this includes an office in Manchester.

1. 1. I am not particularly persuaded by the parties’ expressed desire for the claim to remain in London because they have both chosen to instruct lawyers in London. As in Airedale at [3], the parties had “decision-making autonomy” as to which HMRC office to involve and which counsel to instruct and where, but such choices are “made with eyes wide open, and they cannot of themselves ‘drive’ the conclusion that the South-East region is the appropriate venue”. In respect of PD 54C, paragraph 2.5(b), travel between London and Manchester can be done with ease, and without requiring an overnight stay for a one-day hearing. As the Claimant lives in Salford his own travel time and costs would be reduced by the claim being heard in Manchester. Under (c), Manchester has video-link hearing facilities should they be needed.

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

1. 1. However, on balance I consider that it would be more appropriate for the case to remain in London, for three reasons.

1. 1. First, the Claimant is seeking an order that the claim should be transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (“the UT TCC”), for the reasons set out in the appendix to the claim form, at [24]-[26]. The Defendant opposes this, for the reasons set out in her summary grounds, at [36a]. The judge considering the issue of permission will need to decide whether to make the transfer order sought.

1. 1. However, if the claim was transferred to Manchester and the case was transferred to the UT TCC this would cause logistical difficulties and potential delay because the UT TCC does not generally sit outside London. Special arrangements would need to be made. Although the regional Administrative Court has a team of ticketed specialist judges, many of whom also sit in the Business and Property Courts, they do not sit in the UT TCC; and those High Court Judges who sit in the regional Administrative Court are generally from the Kings Bench Division. If the case was transferred to the UT TCC, arrangements would need to be made to bring a High Court Judge of the Chancery Division / specialist Upper Tribunal Judge to sit in the UT TCC in Manchester specifically for this case. I am required to take into account these additional cost and resource issues under the overriding objective in CPR 1.1(1) and 1.1(2)(b) and (e).

1. 1. Second, the Defendant is right to highlight the further developments in the Airedale case after Fordham J’s judgment. Court records show that it was transferred to the UT TCC on the grant of permission and as far as I understand it, the case is being administered in London: see, for example, the judgment of Upper Tribunal Judge Raghavan dated 9 October 2024, reported at [2024] UKUT 322 (TCC).

1. 1. Third, I am conscious that this determination on venue has been delayed through no fault of the parties: due to an administrative oversight their submissions dated 1 and 2 July 2024 were not placed before a judge for determination until 14 January 2025. Moreover, no decision on permission has yet been made. I am concerned that transfer to Manchester will cause more delay to the claim, again through no fault of the parties. It is important that the case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly under the overriding objective in CPR 1.1(1) and 1.1(2)(d).

Conclusion

1. For all these reasons, I have concluded that this claim should remain in London.