AC-2025-LON-00828 - [2025] EWHC 2598 (Admin)

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.