Why, in DR Sanchez v Simple PM Limited, did the County Court at Central London "sit at" Oxford Combined Court?

Question

In Case No. F01CL101, Sanchez v. SPML (see note), the judgment says

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON

SITTING AT OXFORD COMBINED COURT

What does this mean, and why might a case being heard by CLCC conceivably hear a case pertaining to a property that is in London in the Oxford Combined Court?

Furthermore, what does this even mean? Is it not a redundant oxymoron of sorts? Since the County Courts in each area were all consolidated into the County Court (which merely "sat in" the hearing centres which served various areas), hence shifting from Central London County Court to The County Court At Central London in the first place, how can the County Court "[sit] at" Central London while also simultaneously be "sitting at" Oxford Combined Court, which is evidently (and unsurprisingly) not even a court itself, but simply a location and facility in which numerous different courts (including the County Court) hear cases in the first place?

Finally, what are the implications of this arrangement?

Answer 1

From the linked judgment:

ADDENDUM

I record here that the trial was listed to be heard on 10 and 11 February 2020 at the County Court of Central London. On Wednesday 5 February the Defendant, who has never had legal representation so far as the court is aware, emailed the Claimant’s solicitors seeking an adjournment of the trial on the basis that a Director of the Defendant was abroad. The Claimant’s solicitors replied by email stating that it could not consent and the Defendant would have to make an application to adjourn to the court. The Defendant did not reply to that email, but I understand the Defendant did make such an application to the County Court at Central London, which was refused on Friday 7 February 2020. On 10 February 2020 the Claimant, her solicitors and witnesses attended the County Court at Central London ready for the trial. Neither the Defendant, any representative, or the Defendant’s two witnesses attended.

In fact, because of judicial unavailability at Central London the trial could not be started on 10 February. Instead, I offered to hear it in Oxford beginning on the second listed day of trial, 11 February 2020. Notice of change of venue was sent to the Defendant by the court post and by email on the afternoon of 10 February. The Claimant’s solicitors also sent notice to the Defendant by email. The email address used was that used by the Defendant throughout the proceedings and as recently as Wednesday last week. There has been no response from the Defendant. Neither the Defendant nor any representative nor its witnesses have attended court either in Oxford or at Central London today. In light of the Defendant’s failure to attend the listed start date of trial, I inferred that it had no intention of participating in the trial, and so I heard the trial in the Defendant’s absence.

Answer 2

It means what it says

IN [Name of Court]

SITTING AT [Venue]

In this case, the court is THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON and the case was heard in the OXFORD COMBINED COURT courthouse, so called because the Oxford County Court and the criminal court share the building. Paragraphs 77 and 78 of the judgement explain why the court was not at its usual venue.