A High Court judge has ordered that a judicial review case issued in London should instead be transferred to Manchester closer to the claimant’s home.

Mr Justice Fordham said in Fortt, R (On the Application Of) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd that the administrative court in Manchester made best use of court resources and judges there had suitable knowledge and experience to handle the case.

The FSCS had asked the court to keep the claim in London given that the organisation and its solicitors Bevan Brittan were both based in the capital, and moving proceedings to Manchester would be costly and require overnight stays.

But the judge pointed out that the train from London to Manchester was ‘little over two hours’ and there was nothing about the FSCS providing a ‘national service’ that required it to use court resources in London.

The court heard that the claimant, from Blackpool, had filed the claim in London rather than Manchester based on the location of the FSCS, their legal representative and the decision being challenged affecting financial service complaints nationwide.

A 'minded to transfer order' (MTTO) was made by Martin Lee, administrative court lawyer, indicating the claim should be heard in Manchester to make best use of court resources and not over-burden the RCJ.

The claimant, whose solicitors are based in Warrington and barrister is from Manchester, did not object to the transfer but the defendant asked for ‘careful examination’ of the issue.

The FSCS said there would be significant costs from having to travel to Manchester for a substantive hearing, including potentially having to stay overnight. These extra costs would increase the burden on financial services firms which pay for the organisation.

Fordham J said Manchester was the region with the closest connection to the claim and that costs were incurred on both sides.

‘There is no reason why cost and travel should favour one party (a public authority defendant) over another (a private individual claimant),’ he added. ‘The fact is that the cost and travel considerations substantially cancel one another out.’