Ladybill Limited, R (on the application of) v Sheffield Magistrates' Court
[2024] EWHC 1851 (Admin)
Darryl Cleugh, R (on the application of) v North Tyneside Council
24 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 374 (Admin)
High Court
Someone sued a council in the wrong city. The judge moved the case to the correct city because that's where everything related to the case happened. The reasons the person gave to keep the case where it was weren't strong enough.
Key Facts
- •Claim for judicial review against North Tyneside Council.
- •Claim initially filed in Manchester Administrative Court.
- •MTTO (minded to transfer order) issued to transfer the case to Leeds Administrative Court.
- •Claimant objects to the transfer citing harassment, data protection breaches, Manchester-based witnesses, and travel difficulties.
- •Homelessness decision letter (24 October 2022) is the subject of the judicial review.
- •The court is only dealing with venue at this stage, not permission for judicial review.
Legal Principles
Claims should be issued in the region most closely connected to the claim.
Form N461
Outcomes
Transfer of the case to Leeds Administrative Court.
The North-Eastern region (Leeds) is most closely connected to the claim. The claimant's objections regarding witnesses and travel difficulties are not considered sufficient to outweigh this.
Similar Cases
Valery Sawbridge, R (on the application of) v Leeds District Magistrates Court
[2024] EWHC 694 (Admin)
Gnanatheepan Subramaniam, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2022] EWHC 3294 (Admin)
Adam Bale, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] EWHC 3216 (Admin)
Robert Bartosik, R (on the application of) v Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for Norfolk
[2024] EWHC 932 (Admin)