Key Facts
- •Judicial review claim filed in London on 30 October 2023 concerning a £124.9m penalty for inaccurate PAYE returns.
- •Claimant resides in Wirral, Merseyside; company involved is in Liverpool.
- •Claimant's solicitors are based in Liverpool, Counsel in London.
- •HMRC, the defendant, is based in London.
- •A minded-to-transfer order (MTTO) was issued for transfer to Manchester.
- •Both parties initially opposed the transfer to Manchester.
Legal Principles
General public interest in hearing judicial review claims in the Administrative Court venue for the region most closely connected to the claim.
Case law and judicial statements
Geographical locations of parties, time, and cost considerations are relevant factors in determining venue.
Judicial discretion
The choice of lawyers should not dictate the venue for judicial review.
Case law and judicial statements
A prompt venue determination can be sought to prevent 'momentum' building around an initially chosen venue.
R (Ellis) v SS for Education [2022] EWHC 1263 (Admin) and Bhimsinhji Thakor v SSHD [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin)
Outcomes
The claim was transferred to Manchester.
The claim is most closely connected to the North-West region; the parties' joint opposition to the transfer was deemed insufficient to outweigh the public interest in regional court allocation. The costs of travel and attendance were considered manageable given the claim's value.