[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Kenny-Levick, R (On the Application Of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Determination as to Venue) [2025] EWHC 904 (Admin) (11 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/904.html Cite as: [2025] EWHC 904 (Admin)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
SITTING IN MANCHESTER

		11/04/2025

This judgment was handed down remotely at 12:30pm on 11 April 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.

The procedural history

2. By a claim issued on 24 February 2025 the Claimant seeks judicial review of the Defendant's 'case to answer' misconduct decision made on 21 November 2024 and served on 25 November 2024.
3. The Claimant filed the claim in London. 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".
4. On 11 March 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 Kam Nagra, 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 Northern region in light of the following:

"The claim has not been filed in the correct region with which the Claimant have the closest region, as indicated in Section 4.6 of the claim form N461 or any reasons to the contrary. The claim has been filed in London but the Claimant resides in Sheffield and his legal representative is based [in] Manchester. There is no connection to London save for the Defendant and legal representative for the Claimant, which does not fall with the exceptions."

6. The MTTO gave the parties liberty to indicate opposition to transfer by way of written submissions within 7 days. The parties provided submissions on 12 March 2025. However, it appears that there was a delay in them being received by the correct member of court staff, such that the case was transferred to Manchester before the submissions had been considered.

The legal framework

7. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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

12. The joint position of both parties is that the claim should be administered and determined in London because:

(i) Although the Claimant's address on the claim form is given as being in Sheffield, he has now returned to work for the Defendant in London;

(ii) The Claimant's counsel is based in London;

(iii) The Defendant and his legal team are based in London;

(iv) It would therefore be more convenient for both parties to attend hearings in London and this would avoid adding to public costs; and

(v) The subject-matter of the claim is a decision that the Defendant has made in a conduct matter relating to the Claimant. Should that process continue, it will take place in London.

13. 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 of PD 54C.
14. The "region in which the claimant resides" is, in fact, the North-Eastern region. This means that if a case was being transferred due to a connection with Sheffield, it should have been transferred to Leeds, not Manchester.
15. However. the location of the Claimant's work, the place where the Defendant is based and the subject-matter of the claim indicate that the claim is "most closely connected" with the South-Eastern region: see [12](i), (iii) and (iv) above.
16. The only connection with Manchester is that the Claimant's solicitors are based there.
17. The other factors set out at [12](ii) and (iv) above add weight to the suggestion that the claim should be transferred back to London.
18. As to paragraph 2.5, factors (a), (b), (c) and (i) support that course. Factor (c) is neutral because Manchester, Leeds and London all have video-link facilities. There is no suggestion that factor (d) applies, but as the Claimant works in London, and is facing disciplinary proceedings in London, any public interest is likely to be there. Factors (e) and (f) are not determinative. There is no suggestion that factors (g) or (h) apply.

Conclusion

19. For all these reasons, I have concluded that this claim should be transferred back to London for administration and determination there.