Judicial review venue dispute resolved in favour of London

7 Feb 2025Court Report

High Court decides on the appropriate venue for a judicial review involving tax domicile issues

Introduction

The High Court recently delivered a significant ruling regarding the appropriate venue for a judicial review case involving tax domicile issues. The case, The King (on the application of Aubrey Weis) vs Commissioners for HMRC, centred on whether the proceedings should be held in London or transferred to the Northern region.

The procedural history

The case was initiated by Aubrey Weis, who sought judicial review of HMRC's decision to issue closure notices, asserting his UK domicile and imposing income tax on his worldwide income. The claim was filed in London, with Weis justifying the choice based on his business interests and the location of legal representatives.

The minded to transfer order

On 24 June 2024, a minded to transfer order (MTTO) was issued, suggesting a transfer to Manchester, as Weis resided in Salford. The MTTO, issued by Martin Lee, cited a precedent set by R (Airedale Chemical Company Ltd) v HMRC, where a similar transfer was made.

The legal framework

The case was governed by CPR PD 54C, which aims to facilitate access to justice by administering cases in the most appropriate location. The guidelines suggest claims should be filed in the region most closely connected to the subject matter, the claimant, or the defendant.

Submissions and decision

Despite the claimant's preference for London, the court found the Northern region to be more closely connected due to Weis's residence in Salford. However, the court ultimately decided to keep the case in London, citing potential logistical issues if transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).

Factors considered

The court considered several factors, including the ease of travel, the potential for delay, and the administrative oversight that had already delayed proceedings. The decision aimed to ensure the case was handled expeditiously and fairly.

Conclusion

Mrs Justice Hill concluded that the claim should remain in London, balancing the logistical challenges and the need for a timely resolution. This decision underscores the complexities involved in determining the most appropriate venue for judicial reviews.