Judicial review venue decision for Andrew Wardley

10 Feb 2025Court Report

High Court decides on the appropriate venue for a judicial review involving the General Medical Council

Introduction

The High Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Hill, delivered a determination regarding the appropriate venue for the judicial review claim brought by Andrew Michael Wardley against the General Medical Council (GMC). The judgment, handed down on 7th February 2025, addressed the procedural issue of where the claim should be administered and determined.

The procedural history

Andrew Wardley, acting in person, initiated a claim on 27th August 2024 seeking judicial review of the GMC's decision to communicate regulatory concerns to a Responsible Officer, which led to his suspension from medical practice. The claim was filed in London, although Wardley resides in Huddersfield, prompting the court to consider transferring the case to a more appropriate venue.

On 3rd December 2024, a 'minded to transfer order' (MTTO) was issued, suggesting the transfer of the case to the Administrative Court in the North-Eastern region, specifically Leeds. This order was based on the fact that the claim had not been filed in the region with which Wardley had the closest connection.

The legal framework

The decision was guided by CPR PD 54C, which aims to facilitate access to justice by ensuring cases are administered in the most appropriate location. The Administrative Court's organisation by geographical area supports this objective, with claims typically being filed in the region most closely connected to the subject matter or the parties involved.

PD 54C outlines that claims should generally be administered in the region with the closest connection, considering factors such as the claimant's residence, the defendant's location, and any other relevant circumstances.

Submissions and decision

Wardley requested that the claim remain in London, citing accessibility and the location of the GMC's headquarters. However, the GMC did not oppose the transfer, maintaining a neutral stance. The court considered the factors outlined in PD 54C, including Wardley's residence in Huddersfield and the GMC's legal team's location in Manchester.

Mrs Justice Hill concluded that the North-Eastern region, where Wardley resides, was the most appropriate venue. The decision was influenced by the ease and cost of travel to Leeds, the availability of video-link facilities, and the general expectation that claims be administered in the region with the closest connection.

Conclusion

The court determined that the claim should be transferred to Leeds for administration and determination. This decision aligns with the principles of PD 54C, ensuring that the case is handled in a venue that reflects its geographical and contextual connections.