Judicial review on rainbow laces campaign venue decision

Introduction

The High Court recently addressed a procedural matter concerning the appropriate venue for a judicial review initiated by Lindsey Smith against The Football Association Limited. The case revolved around the 'Rainbow Laces' campaign, a decision by the Football Association to support the wearing of rainbow-coloured items during Premier League matches.

The Procedural History

The claim was filed on 12 February 2025, challenging the Football Association's decision from November 2024. The claimant, Lindsey Smith, filed the claim in the South-Eastern region, asserting it had the closest connection. However, a 'minded to transfer order' (MTTO) was issued, suggesting a transfer to the North-Eastern region, where the claimant resides.

The MTTO, issued by Martin Lee, an Administrative Court Lawyer, highlighted the importance of utilising court resources efficiently and questioned the claimant's choice of venue. The MTTO cited a precedent from R (Thakor, aka Parmar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 2556 (Admin), where a similar transfer was deemed appropriate.

The Legal Framework

The court's decision was guided by CPR PD 54C, which aims to facilitate access to justice by ensuring cases are heard in the most appropriate location. The guidance specifies that claims should be filed in the region with the closest connection, considering factors such as the claimant's and defendant's locations and the subject matter of the claim.

Paragraph 2.5 of PD 54C outlines several factors for determining venue, including the parties' preferences, travel costs, public interest, and the workload of potential venues.

Submissions and Decision

The claimant argued for the case to remain in the South-Eastern region, citing the location of legal representatives and the ease of travel to London. The Football Association remained neutral, and Stonewall Equality Ltd, the interested party, did not submit an opinion.

Mrs Justice Hill considered the factors outlined in PD 54C. While the claimant resides in the North-Eastern region, the decision's nationwide impact and the Football Association's South-Eastern base were significant. The convenience of legal teams and the availability of video-link facilities were also considered.

Conclusion

After evaluating the relevant factors, Mrs Justice Hill concluded that the claim should remain in the South-Eastern region. This decision reflects the balance of convenience and the efficient use of court resources.

Learn More

For more information on UK employment law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Employment Law.