Flavio Fellica v Liverpool City Council (Venue Determination) [2026] EWHC 1926 (Admin)

[2026] EWHC 1926 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Case Numbers: AC-2026-LON-001627
and AC-2026-LDS-000138
Venue Royal Courts of Justice,Date Date:
Strand,
London,
WC2A 2LL
Before
MRS JUSTICE HILL DBE
Between
FLAVIO FELLICAAppellantLIVERPOOL CITY COUNCILRespondent
AC-2026-LON-001627
AC-2026-LDS-000138THE KING (on the application of) FLAVIO FELLICA-and-LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SOCIAL CARE OMBUDSMAN-and-LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL Claimant Defendant Interested Party
The Claimant was not legally representedBevan Brittan LLP for DefendantLiverpool City Council Legal Services for Interested PartyWritten submissions on venue:AC-2026-LON-001627: 26 and 30 June 2026 (Appellant)and 30 June 2026 (Respondent)AC-2026-LDS-000138: 19 June and 6 July 2026 (Claimant);no submissions filed by Defendant
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 4:30pm on Friday 24 July 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................Introduction
[1]This is a judicial determination on the papers, but where it is appropriate to give reasons by way of a short judgment. It addresses the issues of where the statutory appeal in AC-2025-LON-001627 and the judicial review claim in AC-2026-LDS-000138 should be administered and determined.[2]The two cases have not been consolidated under CPR 3.1(2)(h). However it is consistent with the overriding objective to deal with the transfer issues arising in both cases together under CPR 3.1(2)(p) because(i) the Appellant/Claimant is common to both cases;(ii) the Appellant/Claimant has raised similar objections to transfer in both cases;(iii) it is proposed that both cases are transferred to the Northern Region, specifically the Administrative Court in Manchester; and(iv) both transfer issues have been referred to me as the Administrative Court Liaison Judge for that region.[3]In both cases the Appellant/Claimant has requested that the transfer issues be dealt with by a Judge who has had no prior dealings, directly or indirectly, with their complaints arising out of their existing cases in Manchester. I have decided that there is no basis for me to recuse myself given the circumstances and context, for the reasons set out at [34]-[46] below. The procedural history AC-2025-LON-001627

The procedural history

[4]This case was filed at the Administrative Court in London on 23 February 2026. It was issued and sealed by the court on 8 April 2026. It is statutory appeal by which the Appellant challenges the decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England dated 26 January 2026 (case number VT00031328) to strike out their appeal against the decision by Liverpool City Council concluding that they are not entitled to council tax reduction. The decision relates to the Appellant’s home at 7 Old Mill Close, Liverpool, L15 8LP.[5]On 19 June 2026 a minded to transfer order (“MTTO”) was made. This is a mechanism by which the Court invites and considers the views of the parties before any finalised decision to transfer the claim: see the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 at paragraph 7.7.5. The MTTO was made by Kevin Lok, Administrative Court Lawyer, in the exercise of powers delegated by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division under CPR 54.1A.[6]The MTTO recorded that the Administrative Court Lawyer was minded to transfer the case to the Administrative Court in the Northern Region for administration and determination at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre in light of the following: “The matters complained of in this appeal have the closest connection to the Northern Region. There are no reasons that justify the matter remaining in London”.[7]The MTTO gave the parties liberty to indicate opposition to transfer by way of written submissions within 7 days. The Appellant provided submissions on 26 June 2026 opposing transfer. The Respondent provided submissions on 30 June 2026 supporting transfer.

AC-2026-LDS-000138

[8]This case was filed at the Administrative Court in Leeds on 5 May 2026 and was issued for service on 11 June 2026. It is a claim for judicial review by which the Claimant seeks to challenge two decisions of the Defendant Ombudsman. The first was dated 26 March 2026 and was a decision by an Investigator not upholding the Claimant’s complaint (except in one aspect, in respect of which a remedy of £100 and an apology was recommended). The second was dated 9 April 2026 and was a decision by an Assistant Ombudsman not to re-open the investigation. While it is not entirely clear, there is a suggestion that the Claimant seeks permission to challenge the “entire course of conduct” of the Ombudsman’s investigation from 21 June 2025. The initial complaint the Claimant had made was about Liverpool City Council, hence their recognition as an Interested Party. The complaint again related to the Claimant’s home in Liverpool.[9]In answer to question 4.6 on the claim form, “Have you issued this claim in the region with which you have the closest connection?” the Claimant answered “No” on the following basis:
“The Claimant has experienced multiple procedural irregularities in proceedings before the courts in Manchester, including violations of the Claimant’s rights and the court’s duties and obligations under CPR 1.6, CPR 3.1A, Practice Direction 1A, the Victims’ Code, and Article 6 ECHR (the practical and effect right to fair proceedings and equality of arms). These matters are the subject of ongoing proceedings and formal appeals (CA-2025 002249), HMCTS complaints, and potentially PHSO complaint. The Claimant has a reasonable and well-founded apprehension that the claim may not receive a fair hearing before the Administrative Court sitting in Manchester in these circumstances. The Defendant is the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, a state body based in Coventry. The claim concerns the exercise of a statutory jurisdiction under the Local Government Act 1974 and raises questions of general public importance about the Ombudsman’s obligations under its own Investigation Manual, the Housing Act 2004, the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and the ECHR. These are matters of broad significance not confined to any one region. The Claimant accordingly requests that the claim be listed before the Administrative Court sitting in Leeds, to ensure that the claim is determined by a court in respect of which the Claimant has no reasonable apprehension of irregularities, unfairness, bias, and inequality of arms.”
[10]On 11 June 2026 a further MTTO was made, this time by Martin Lee, Administrative Court Lawyer, again in the exercise of powers delegated by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division under CPR 54.1A. The MTTO recorded that the Lawyer was minded to transfer the case to the Administrative Court in the northern region for administration and determination at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre in light of the following: “The claimant has ticked in section 4, N461 that the claim has not been filed in the region with which the claim has the closest connection and gives as his reason the fact that they have other proceedings before the Administrative Court in Manchester in respect of which they consider there have been violations of his human rights etc., and that they would not receive a fair trial: such representations are unsupported by any evidence and, in any event, are apparently subject to a complaints process that has not reached a conclusion. It is clear that this claim concerns matters originally arising in Liverpool: it has no connection to the NE region (other than it being the next geographical region). The claimant has also filed another set of proceedings in London (statutory appeal against a determination by a Tribunal also concerning a matter decided by Liverpool City Council, another matter also connected with the subject matter of this claim). In so far as the claimant asserts concerns regarding other proceedings, that does not provide good reason for filing the claims other than in accordance with the Practice Direction, nor does it justify the use of Court resources across multiple locations”.[11]The MTTO gave the parties liberty to indicate opposition to transfer by way of written submissions within 7 days. The Claimant provided submissions on 19 June and 6 July 2026 opposing transfer. The Defendant provided no submissions.

The legal framework

[12]CPR PD 54C is intended to facilitate access to justice by enabling cases to be administered and determined in the most appropriate location: paragraph 1.1.[13]It explains that the administration of the Administrative Court is organised by geographical area; and that, in addition to the central Administrative Court Office at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, there are Administrative Court Offices in Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds and Manchester. Claims on the North-Eastern Circuit are administered from (and should be filed in) Leeds and claims on the Northern Circuit are administered from (and should be filed in) Manchester: paragraph 1.2(1).[14]The Administrative Court applies the principle that “where a claim has a specific connection to a region (by subject matter, location of the claimant or defendant or otherwise) it should, if at all possible, be administered and determined in that region”: paragraph 1.2(2).[15]PD 54C makes provision for certain “excepted classes of claim” at paragraph 3.1. In all other cases, proceedings should be commenced “at the Administrative Court office for the region with which the claim is most closely connected, having regard to the subject matter of the claim, the location of the claimant, or the defendant, or otherwise”: paragraph 2.1.[16]Paragraph 2.5 reiterates the “general expectation” that “proceedings will be administered and determined in the region with which the claim has the closest connection”. This will be determined “having regard to the subject matter of the claim, the region in which the claimant resides and the region in which the defendant or any relevant office or department of the defendant is based”. In addition, the court may consider any or all other relevant circumstances including the following:
“(a) any reason expressed by any party for preferring a particular venue; (b) the ease and cost of travel to a hearing; (c) the availability and suitability of alternative means of attending a hearing (for example, by video-link); (d) the extent and nature of any public interest that the proceedings be heard in any particular locality; (e) the time within which it is appropriate for the proceedings to be determined; (f) whether it is desirable to administer or determine the claim in another region in the light of the volume of claims issued at, and the capacity, resources and workload of, the court at which it is issued; (g) whether the claim raises issues sufficiently similar to those in another outstanding claim to make it desirable that it should be determined together with, or immediately following, that other claim; (h) whether the claim raises devolution issues and for that reason whether it should more appropriately be determined in London or Cardiff; and (i) the region in which the legal representative[s] of the parties are based”
.

Submissions and decision

[17]As noted at [7] and [11] above the Appellant/Claimant opposes transfer of both cases to Manchester. The Defendant in AC-2025-LON-001627 positively supports transfer. The Respondent in AC-2026-LDS-000138 has filed no submissions and is therefore to be taken not to oppose transfer (as the MTTO only required submissions if transfer was opposed).[18]It is necessary to determine whether there is a region with which these cases have a “specific connection” and if not the region with which each is “most closely connected” by reference to the factors set out in paragraphs 1.2(2), 2.1 and 2.5.[19]The “region in which the claimant resides” for the purposes of both cases is the Northern Region.[20]The “subject matter of the claim” in relation to AC-2025-LON-001627 is the council tax to be paid to Liverpool City Council on the Appellant’s home at 7 Old Mill Close, Liverpool, L15 8LP. In relation to AC-2026-LDS-000138 it is the decisions of the Ombudsman in relation to the actions of Liverpool City Council in respect of the same property. The subject matter of both cases is therefore most closely related to the Northern Region.[21]As to the “region in which the defendant or any relevant office or department of the defendant is based”, the Respondent to AC-2025-LON-001627 is Liverpool City Council, based in that city. Again, that is in the Northern Region. The Appellant has indicated that in AC-2026-LDS-000138 the Defendant Ombudsman is based in Coventry. However, as the Appellant also recognises, the Ombudsman exercises a national jurisdiction. In any event, this factor does not support the case remaining in Leeds: Coventry is located within the Midlands Circuit area, such that cases with a close connection to Coventry that were issued outside that area might well be transferred to Birmingham, not Leeds.[22]For these reasons both cases are “most closely connected” with the Northern Region. I turn now to the other factors in paragraph 2.5.

(i) : AC-2025-LON-001627

[23]I deal first with the Appellant’s reasons for contending that AC-2025-LON-001627 should remain in London, insofar as they are not addressed under paragraphs (b)-(h) below.[24]First, the Appellant contends that the authority of Mr Lok to make the MTTO has not been established because there is no evidence that the President of the King’s Bench Division specifically authorised him to make the MTTO in this case. They question how the MTTO could have been made just a matter of days after the one made by Mr Lee in AC-2026-LDS-000138, suggesting that there was insufficient time for specific authorisations to be given for each MTTO.[25]The answer is that Administrative Court Lawyers make MTTOs under a general power to do so, delegated to them by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division under CPR 54.1A: see the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 at paragraph 13.4.5.10. A specific delegation of power is not required before each MTTO is made.[26]Second, the Appellant contends that the legal framework set out at [12]-[16] above does not apply to this case as it is a statutory appeal and not a judicial review claim.[27]I cannot accept that submission. PD 54C governs the procedure in the Administrative Court and that is the court in which this appeal is proceeding, as required. In my judgment the scope of PD 54C is not limited to claims for judicial review. That it is intended to cover the entirety of the work of the Administrative Court is clear from, for example,(i) the reference to “proceedings” (not judicial review claims) in paragraph 2.1; and(ii) the fact that paragraphs 2 and 3.1 refer to “excepted classes of claim”, which must be heard in London, many of which are not judicial review proceedings. For the avoidance of doubt, a statutory appeal of this kind is not on that list.[28]If I am wrong in that conclusion, then the court’s general power to transfer cases under CPR 30.2(4) applies. I would then be required to have regard to the factors in CPR 30.3.[29]Of those factors, the value of the claim under (a) is not material here, given that the remedies the Appellant/Claimant seeks in both cases are almost exclusively non-financial, as is usually the case in the Administrative Court. It would be fairest and most convenient for the cases to be transferred to Manchester, under (b), for the reasons given at [55]-[63] below. Under (c), judges specialising in administrative law are available in all three court centres in issue.[30]There is nothing in the complexity of the facts, legal issues, remedies or procedures under (d) that justifies the cases remaining in London or Leeds. Under (e), I have seen no evidence of a particular public interest in the outcome of the claim but if there is any such interest, it is likely to be in the Northern Region.[31]All three courts have comparable facilities to support the participation of disabled or vulnerable parties and witnesses and comparable security, under (f). There is no application for a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, nor are these proceedings by or against the Crown, so as to engage (g) or (h). I would therefore make the same decision in respect of transfer under CPR 30.3 as I have under PD 54C.[32]Third, the Appellant highlights that the Valuation Tribunal’s own guidance directs appellants to file an appeal at the Administrative Court in London. Even on the premise that that is correct and excuses the filing in London, the issue of venue arises and PD 54C governs that issue.[33]Fourth, the Appellant raises the risk of delay: I deal with this at [60] below.[34]Fifth, the Appellant contends that they have a reasonable apprehension of unfair treatment and bias by the Administrative Court in Manchester due to the handling of AC-2025-MAN-000051, AC-2025-MAN-000096 and AC-2025-MAN-000048.[35]The Appellant indicates that they have made a series of complaints to His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) about these matters (giving the following references c62209b1, 7aaaf96e, 8592d722, b784739f, ff8a088d, 38a8e484 and 09ba3fff). The Appellant’s complaints of procedural irregularities relate, in summary, to claims they have filed being rejected by the court, delays in claims being issued/sealed, directions requiring them to serve sealed orders and issues with the Help With Fees process. The Appellant has also referred to some proceedings before the Court of Appeal arising from judicial decisions made in Manchester.[36]For these reasons the Appellant contends that AC-2025-LON-001627 should remain in London (and separately that AC-2026-LDS-000138 should remain in Leeds). The Appellant also asks that the transfer issues be determined by a Judge who has had no involvement in the Manchester complaints referred to above.[37]The Appellant has invoked the common law principle relating to bias set out in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357. Lord Hope set out the test to be applied at [102]: “The court must first ascertain all the circumstances which have a bearing on the suggestion that the judge was biased. It must then ask whether those circumstances would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility…that the tribunal was biased”.[38]I have very limited knowledge of the complaints referred to at [35] above beyond being aware of the relatively recent issues that have arisen in Manchester over the Help With Fees process. I have approved correspondence to be sent to the Appellant by court staff explaining that this is an administrative, not judicial, process, such that any complaints should be made to HMCTS. While judges generally would not become involved in HMCTS complaints, court staff sought my guidance and the Appellant has emailed me directly asking me to intervene. I understand that the Appellant’s most recent HMCTS complaint has not been upheld. Beyond these matters, I am not aware of the detail of the HMCTS complaints.[39]I know very little about the decisions from the Administrative Court in Manchester which the Appellant has appealed, or sought to appeal, to the Court of Appeal, beyond what the Appellant has set out in the venue submissions. Those appeals, or applications for permission to appeal, will be determined on their merits. If a decision of a particular judge of the Administrative Court in Manchester is overturned on appeal, it is likely that any issue remitted back to the Court by the Court of Appeal would be determined by a different judge.[40]All judges take an oath of independence, requiring them to approach each case on its own merits. Many of the judges who sit in the Administrative Court in Manchester, myself included, sit in the Administrative Court in other locations.[41]Similarly, it is the responsibility of staff to approach each case individually and to try and meet the particular needs of litigants in person and vulnerable litigants, even where they are aware that procedural complaints have been made.[42]I observe that although the Appellant has focused their submissions on their concerns about the Administrative Court in Manchester, they have also been critical of what they describe as “administrative failure” at the Administrative Court both in London and in Leeds: see their submissions on venue in AC-2025-LON-001627 at [18]; and the submissions on venue in AC-2026-LDS-000138 at [10]-[12].[43]Bearing in mind all these circumstances, in my judgment a fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias against the Appellant/Claimant from the judges and staff of the Administrative Court in Manchester.[44]Fordham J observed in R (Sawbridge) v Leeds District Magistrates Court [2024] EWHC 694 (Admin) at [4] that he could “see no basis for any conclusion or objectively justified perception that no judge or judges who sit in the Administrative Court at Leeds could deal properly, justly and appropriately” with the case in hand. He observed that he could not “see anything which would undermine the Administrative Court in Leeds dealing with the claim properly and appropriately”. I take the same view in relation to this case and the judges and staff at the Administrative Court in Manchester.[45]Fordham J reiterated that “If a judge of the Court has dealt with a previous case involving the Claimant, and if this is considered to give rise to a problem or concern, that can be considered. If any decision on any complaint is said to have any specific consequence, the Claimant can raise this”. The same considerations apply here.[46]For these reasons I have decided that there is no basis for me to recuse myself from making this venue determination decision; and that the Appellant’s concerns about the judges or staff at the Administrative Court in Manchester do not justify these cases not being transferred there.[47]Sixth, the Appellant reiterates that they are unrepresented with no legal training; and that they are a vulnerable party within the meaning of CPR 1.6, 3.1A and PD 1A and a victim of crime. The Appellant has raised no particular issues about, for example, travel to a particular court centre due to their vulnerability. CPR 1.6, 3.1A and PD 1A apply with equal force to all the Administrative Court centres. All three courts under consideration here can be expected to make adjustments to the usual court procedures through ground rules or special measures as appropriate. Accordingly, this factor does not assist in determining where these cases should be administered and determined. So far as legal training is concerned, this is not a venue-specific point. I observe that despite the lack of legal training the Appellant/Claimant is capable of filing lengthy submissions making detailed points about procedural rules and caselaw.[48]Accordingly, none of these general reasons advanced by the Appellant have persuaded me that AC-2025-LON-001627 should remain in London. (ii): AC-2026-LDS-000138[49]The Claimant has repeated many of the submissions made on venue in AC-2025-LON-001627 in AC-2026-LDS-000138. The additional points made in AC-2026-LDS-000138 are as follows.[50]First, the Claimant contends that my judgment in R (Smith) v Football Association Ltd [2025] EWHC 686 (Admin) stands for the proposition that “the ‘closest connection’ “general expectation” [in PD 54C, paragraph 2.1] genuinely yields to the discretionary factors in paragraph 2.5”.[51]Smith does not create any general rule or proposition of the kind contended for by the Claimant. It was a venue determination on its own facts. As [14]-[17] of the judgment in Smith make clear, the case did not have an obviously close connection with any one region. The discretionary factors in paragraph 2.5 militated in favour of that case being transferred from Leeds to London. The position is different, in my judgment, here.[52]Second, the Claimant contends that any link the case has with Liverpool does not render Manchester the appropriate court centre: Manchester just happens to be the adjacent region to Liverpool. Manchester is the designated Administrative Court centre for all claims arising out of the Northern Circuit. That Circuit area includes Liverpool.[53]Accordingly, neither of these additional arguments justify the claim remaining in Leeds.

(b) : The ease and cost of travel to a hearing

[54]The Appellant/Claimant lives in Liverpool. Manchester is the nearest Administrative Court centre to Liverpool and therefore the easiest and cheapest place for the Appellant/Claimant to travel to.[55]Liverpool City Council is the Respondent to AC-2025-LON-001627 and the Interested Party in AC-2026-LDS-000138. Accordingly, Manchester is also the easiest and cheapest Administrative Court for the Council to travel to. It has confirmed in its submissions in AC-2025-LON-001627 that Manchester would be preferable for its counsel in terms of proximity and costs.[56]The Ombudsman Defendant to AC-2026-LDS-000138 has taken no issue with travelling to Manchester, perhaps unsurprisingly as it is nearer to Coventry than Leeds is. Its solicitors on this claim are based in London but part of a national firm; and again no point has been taken about them travelling to Manchester. (c): The availability and suitability of alternative means of attending a hearing (for example, by video-link)[57]The Administrative Courts in London, Leeds and Manchester all have comparable facilities, including video-link hearing facilities should they be needed, such that his factor is neutral. (d): The extent and nature of any public interest that the proceedings be heard in any particular locality[58]If there is any public interest in either of these cases, it is likely to be in Liverpool and this in the Northern Region. I do not find the Appellant/Claimant’s arguments that the issues raised by either case are of national importance or broad public interest objectively persuasive. (f): Whether it is desirable to administer or determine the claim in another region in the light of the volume of claims issued at, and the capacity, resources and workload of, the court at which it is issued (e): The time within which it is appropriate for the proceedings to be determined[59]All of the Administrative Court centres in London, Leeds and Manchester are busy, but there is no particular reason to consider that transfer to Manchester will lead to any undue delay as the Claimant suggests. (g): Whether the claim raises issues sufficiently similar to those in another outstanding claim to make it desirable that it should be determined together with, or immediately following, that other claim[60]These two cases are distinct to the extent that they are different kinds of case (one is a statutory appeal and one is a claim for judicial review).[61]However, it is apparent from my review of the significant number of applications and documents filed by the Appellant/Claimant across both cases and the case already in Manchester that they are taking similar procedural points in the various cases. These include submissions relating to(i) the Help With Fees process;(ii) the date on which documents are filed with the court as opposed to the date on which they are issued/sealed by the court and the date on which they are served;(iii) the obligation on the Appellant/Claimant to effect service;(iv) the authority of Administrative Court Lawyers to make decisions under delegated powers; and(v) whether solicitors representing the other party are properly instructed/on the court record.[62]For this reason I consider that it is preferable for both of these cases to be administered from one court centre, to ensure consistency of approach and reduce the risk of unnecessary duplication of work. This in turn should ensure that the resources of the Administrative Court across the different court centres are directed proportionately, under factor (f). (h): Whether the claim raises devolution issues and for that reason whether it should more appropriately be determined in London or Cardiff[63]Neither case raises devolution issues so this factor does not apply. (i): The region in which the legal representative[s] of the parties are based.[64]This has been addressed at [55]-[56] above, and supports both cases being transferred to Manchester.

Conclusion

[65]For all these reasons, I have concluded that the statutory appeal in AC-2026-LON-001627 and the judicial review claim in AC-2026-LDS-000138 should be transferred to the Administrative Court in Manchester and administered and determined from there.