The Porky Pint Ltd v Stockton on Tees Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Fordham |
| Judgment Date | 06 July 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1705 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2177/2022 |
[2022] EWHC 1705 (Admin)
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: CO/2177/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
SITTING IN LEEDS
1 Oxford Row,
Leeds LS1 3BG
Tilbrook's Solicitors for the Appellant
Litigation, Stockton-on-Tees BC for the Respondent
Determination as to Venue
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HON. Mr Justice Fordham
Note: a non-confidential version of this judgment was released on 1 July 2022, for finalisation (correction of typos) and formal hand-down on 6 July 2022.
This is a judicial determination on the papers, but where it is, in my judgment, appropriate to give reasons by way of a short judgment. This is an appeal by case stated, in which a minded to transfer order (“MTTO”) was made on 22 June 2022 for transfer to Leeds.
In response to the MTTO the Appellant's solicitors filed these objections:
Thank you for your email of the afternoon of Wednesday, 22 nd June in which you implicitly asked whether we would like the case transferred to the Leeds Administrative Court. The answer is no we would not. Leeds is no more convenient to us than it is to the Respondent and this is a case where one side is publicly funded and therefore not concerned at the cost, whereas our client is not publicly funded and would be put to considerable extra cost for travel expenses for his lawyers to travel up to Leeds, which in any case has no real connection with the case and is not even in the “North East Region”, whatever label has been applied to it. This is a case where there will be two hearings and, if we have to travel up to Leeds for these hearings, then there will be an additional expense to our client in excess of £5,000. We would respectfully suggest that that is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor proportionate .
The Respondent filed these representations in support of the transfer:
I write further to the Order made concerning venue and the below email from the appellant's representative in this matter. Public money and the cost to the public purse are a relevant matters that should be taken into consideration. The appellant and the respondent are based in the North East as is our Counsel. I reiterate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Porky Pint Ltd v Stockton on Tees Borough Council
...stated Case of 11 May 2022 (the “Stated Case”). I first encountered this case in July 2022, in making the Venue Determination at [2022] EWHC 1705 (Admin) (the “July Judgment”). The appeal had wrongly been filed in London. The Administrative Court in London is not the National Administrativ......