Judicial review venue decision in Bandla vs Harwood Group Practice

Introduction

The High Court recently rendered a decision regarding the appropriate venue for a judicial review case involving Venkateshwarlu Bandla and Harwood Group Practice. The case centred on the refusal to issue a medical fitness certificate, a matter that raised procedural questions about the most suitable court location for the proceedings.

The procedural history

The claimant, Mr Bandla, initiated the judicial review on 14 February 2025, challenging the defendant's decision from 12 December 2024. The claim was filed in the Manchester Administrative Court, with Mr Bandla asserting that the region was most closely connected to the case due to convenience for both parties and the availability of evidence and witnesses.

On 25 February 2025, a 'minded to transfer order' (MTTO) was issued, suggesting the case might be more appropriately heard in the South Eastern Region. This was due to its connection with another ongoing claim in that region. The MTTO invited the parties to submit their views before a final decision was made.

The legal framework

The decision-making process was guided by CPR PD 54C, which aims to ensure cases are heard in the most appropriate locations. The Administrative Court operates across several regions, and claims should generally be filed in the region with the closest connection to the subject matter, claimant, or defendant.

Paragraph 2.5 of PD 54C outlines factors for determining the appropriate venue, including the location of parties, subject matter connection, and any related ongoing claims that might influence venue choice.

Submissions and decision

Mr Bandla argued for the case to remain in Manchester, citing cost and convenience, as both parties are based in the North West. The defendant did not provide submissions. The court considered these factors alongside the MTTO's suggestion to transfer the case to align with related proceedings in the South East.

Ultimately, Mrs Justice Hill decided that the claim should remain in Manchester. The decision was influenced by the claimant's residence, the defendant's location, and the logistical benefits of keeping the case in the North West. The potential for noting the related claim in the South East was deemed sufficient to address concerns about judicial consistency.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision underscores the importance of venue considerations in judicial review cases, balancing logistical practicality with procedural efficiency. The ruling allows Mr Bandla's claim to proceed in Manchester, aligning with the principle of regional connection.