BAILII [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 >> Parkin, R (On the Application Of) v Rotherham Doncaster And South Humberside NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 1500 (Admin) (21 June 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1500.html
Cite as: [2023] EWHC 1500 (Admin)

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

Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EWHC 1500 (Admin)
Case No: CO/1775/2023

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

Date of Issue: Monday, 19th June 2023
21st June 2023

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE FORDHAM
____________________

Between:
THE KING (on the application of
GARY PARKIN)
 Claimant
- and -
ROTHERHAM DONCASTER AND SOUTH HUMBERSIDE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
 Defendant

____________________

Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EWHC 1500 (Admin)
Case No: CO/1775/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
SITTING IN LEEDS
Date of Issue: Monday, 19th June 2023
Date of Hand Down: Wednesday, 21st June 2023
Before:
MR JUSTICE FORDHAM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:

THE KING (on the application of
GARY PARKIN)
Claimant


- and -



ROTHERHAM DONCASTER AND SOUTH HUMBERSIDE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment Determination as to Venue
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT DETERMINATION AS TO VENUE
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    MR JUSTICE FORDHAM:

  1. This is a judicial determination on the papers, but where it is, in my judgment, appropriate to give reasons by way of a short judgment. This is a claim for judicial review in which a minded to transfer order ("MTTO") to the Administrative Court in Leeds (the North-Eastern region) was made on 18 May 2023. The Claimant, who acts in person, had filed the claim in the Administrative Court in London (the South-East region) and answered "yes" to the question in Claim Form N461: "Have you issued this claim in the region with which the claim is most closely connected?" The MTTO gave reasons for a transfer to Leeds and gave the parties 7 days to file representations objecting to that course. The Defendant has filed no objections to the transfer.

  2. The Claimant's objections to the transfer no longer maintain that the South-East is the region with which the claim is most closely connected. He is right not to have maintained that position. By his Claim Form the Claimant (who lives in Doncaster) seeks to challenge the decision of the Defendant about disability access to Tickhill Hospital (in Doncaster). The Claimant's objections now say that London is "a more experienced court" with "more resources" and which "is easier to get to". But I am entirely satisfied that this case belongs in Leeds. The North East is the region with which the claim is most closely connected. The Administrative Court in Leeds has the experience and resources to deal with the claim. Leeds is also accessible (30 mins direct by train) from Doncaster. There is no good or convincing reason where the case should not be dealt with in Leeds. On that basis, I have made the transfer order.

    3. 19.6.23

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1500.html