Prestwick Care Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

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 17 March 2025 the Claimant seeks judicial review of the Defendant’s decision dated 11 March 2025 to refuse to continue the agreement between the parties that protects the Claimant’s employees pending the final determination of ongoing litigation and/or the outcome of the Claimant’s pending application for sponsorship licences; and ongoing delay in determining the Claimant’s pending application for sponsorship licences.

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” on the form, setting out reasons why the claim had been commenced in London.

4. On 21 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 Martin Lee, Administrative Court Lawyer, in the exercise of powers delegated by the President of the King’s Bench Division under CPR 54.1A; see also the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 at paragraph 13.4.5.10.

5. The MTTO recorded that Mr Lee was minded to transfer the case to the North Eastern region for the following reasons: “Although the claimant has ticked in section 4, N461 that the claim has…been filed in the region with which the claimant has the closest connection the only justification was the need for interim relief to be considered. That has now occurred – there is no ongoing justification for the claim to remain in London and all the more reason why two claims involving the same parties should [not] continue to be administered in two locations. Any application for oral consideration of the interim relief can be accommodated in either location but the proceedings themselves should be in one location – the location previously identified in existing proceedings”.

6. The MTTO gave the parties liberty to indicate opposition to transfer by way of written submissions within 7 days. The order provided for the case to be automatically transferred to the North Eastern region if no submissions were received within that timescale.

7. The MTTO was sent to the parties after 4.30 pm on Friday 21 March 2025 and so would be deemed received by them on Monday 24 March 2025. It appears from CE-file that the Claimants responded to the MTTO via submissions filed on Monday 31 March 2025. The Defendant responded via an email dated 1 April 2025. Both parties asked that the claim remain in London.

8. On the basis of the dates set out in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant’s submissions were filed outside the deadline. They have nevertheless been considered. Due to an administrative oversight by, it appears, the Administrative Court Office in London, the submissions were not referred to me for determination until 15 September 2025. The legal framework

9. 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.

10. 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).

11. 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).

12. 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.

13. 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

14. In light of the legal framework above it is necessary to determine whether this case has a “specific connection” to a region and/or which region the claim is “most closely connected” with, by reference to the factors set out in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.5.

15. The Claimant is located in Newcastle. The decisions of the Defendant which feature in the claim appear to have been made in Sheffield. Both Newcastle and Sheffield are the North Eastern region.

16. Although there was, as the Defendant’s submissions highlight, an extant appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the refusal of interim relief in this case, that was determined by Singh LJ on 10 April 2025 and the approved judgment in respect of that decision was submitted to the court by the parties on 4 September 2025.

17. Accordingly, no substantive aspect of this case remains in London. The case plainly has the closest connection with the North Eastern region.

18. As to the other factors in paragraph 2.5, factor (g) is clearly engaged given that three earlier judicial reviews between the parties have been commenced in the North-Eastern region, with case numbers AC-2023-LDS-000052, AC-2023-LDS-000105 and AC-2024-LDS-000076.

19. Moreover, case number AC-2024-LDS-000076, relating to the Defendant’s refusal of a new sponsor license for the Claimants, is ongoing in the North Eastern region: the court is awaiting dates of availability from the Claimants’ counsel in order to list an oral hearing of the renewed application for permission (the same having been refused on the papers by HHJ Klein, sitting as Judge of the High Court).

20. This case raises similar, and linked, issues to those in case number AC-2024-LDS-000076, such that it is desirable that they be determined in the same court.

21. Related to (e) and (f), the Claimant has expressed some concern about the resources available to the Administrative Court in Leeds to make orders on an urgent basis when the need arises. However, as the issue of interim relief in this case has been conclusively determined by the judgment of Singh LJ, there should be no or less of a need for such an urgent order in this case going forward. If an application is genuinely urgent and cannot be considered quickly enough at the Administrative Court in Leeds, there is a mechanism by which it can be transferred to London.

22. Under (c), the Administrative Court in Leeds has video-link hearing facilities should they be needed.

23. Under (d), there is generally a public interest in proceedings being heard in the locality to which the claim relates, a public interest which is reflected in PD 54C.

24. Factor (h) does not apply.

25. As to factor (a), the primary reason relied on by both parties for the case remaining in London is that their legal representatives are based in London. It is said that travel would be easier and cheaper if the case remained in London, thus engaging factors (b) and (i). However, as Fordham J highlighted in R (Airedale Chemical Company Ltd) v HMRC [2022] EWHC 2937 (Admin) at [3], the parties have “decision-making autonomy” as to which lawyers to instruct; and as he said in R (Thakor / Palmer) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin) Thakor at [2], instructing London counsel “ought not…normally ‘drive’ a London choice of venue becoming self-fulfilling”.

26. In my judgment the parties’ choice to instruct legal representatives in London is not a persuasive enough factor, on its own, to outweigh the others set out above. Those factors justify the case being transferred. Conclusion

27. For all these reasons, I have concluded that this claim should be transferred to the North Eastern region for administration and determination there.