High Court decides on venue for legal aid case

Introduction

The High Court of Justice, Administrative Court, recently delivered a decision concerning the appropriate venue for a judicial review case. The case involved Andrezej Szczurkowski, a claimant challenging a decision by the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The judgment was handed down by Mrs Justice Hill on 14 February 2025.

Procedural History

The claimant, Andrezej Szczurkowski, sought judicial review of a decision made on 20 September 2024 by the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The decision granted 'legal help' rather than full or investigative legal representation. The claim was filed in London, and a 'minded to transfer order' (MTTO) was issued on 8 January 2025, suggesting a potential transfer to the Administrative Court in Leeds.

The MTTO was based on the claimant's residence in Leeds and the perceived inefficiency of filing the claim in London. The order allowed parties to oppose the transfer within seven days, leading to written submissions by 13 January 2025.

Legal Framework

The decision was guided by CPR PD 54C, which facilitates access to justice by determining the most appropriate location for case administration. The Administrative Court operates across several regions, including London and Leeds, with cases ideally filed in the region with the closest connection to the claim.

The court considered factors such as the claimant's residence, the location of the defendant's office, and the subject matter of the claim. The principle is that claims should be administered in the region they are most closely connected to, unless specific exceptions apply.

Submissions and Decision

The claimant argued for the case to remain in London, citing the location of the defendant and legal representatives. The claimant also suggested a connection to a previous case, Janicki, involving similar issues. The defendant agreed with the claimant's preference for London, emphasising the location of relevant offices and teams.

Mrs Justice Hill considered the factors outlined in CPR PD 54C. While both the North-Eastern and London regions had connections to the case, the decision ultimately favoured London. Factors such as the location of legal representatives and potential logistical benefits of linking the case with Janicki influenced the decision.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the claim should remain in the London region. The decision considered the efficiency of court resources, the convenience for legal representatives, and the potential for consistent decision-making with related cases.

Learn More

For more information on legal aid and judicial review processes, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.

Copyright & permissions