Judicial review of property confiscation by Home Office

17 Mar 2025Court Report

High Court decides on venue for judicial review of property confiscation involving Home Office and police

Introduction

The High Court was tasked with determining the appropriate venue for a judicial review concerning the confiscation of property by the Home Office and police authorities. The case, brought by claimants Mia and CJW, questioned the decisions and policies related to the seizure of their belongings, including mobile phones and clothing.

The procedural history

The claimants filed their judicial review application on 23 July 2024, challenging actions taken on 23 April 2024. Initially filed in London, the claimants asserted that this was the region with which they had the closest connection. However, a 'minded to transfer order' (MTTO) was issued the following day, suggesting a transfer to Manchester, due to the claimants' residence in that region.

The MTTO, a procedural mechanism allowing parties to express views on the proposed transfer, was issued by Martin Lee, an Administrative Court Lawyer. The order referenced precedents where cases were transferred from London to regional courts, citing the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2024.

The legal framework

Under CPR PD 54C, the Administrative Court is organised by geographical area to facilitate access to justice. Claims should be filed in the region most closely connected to the claim, considering factors such as the location of the claimant and defendant. The court considers various factors, including the ease of travel and public interest, when deciding on the appropriate venue.

Submissions and decision

The claimants' solicitors argued for the case to remain in London, a position supported by all defendants. The court examined factors such as the claimants' temporary residence in Manchester and the location of events in the south-east of England. Despite the claimants' residence, the court found the claim most closely connected to the south-east, where significant events occurred.

Additional factors, such as the case's connection to similar claims managed in London and the location of legal representatives, supported keeping the case in London. The court noted that related claims had been settled in London, reinforcing the preference for managing similar cases together.

Conclusion

After considering all relevant factors, the High Court decided that the claim should remain in London. The decision was influenced by the connection to similar cases, the location of legal representatives, and the events' geographical context.