Ayiwe, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Hackney

In judicial review of a local authority’s decision on student-support eligibility, the court does not rehear disputed facts or substitute its own assessment. The question is whether the authority could rationally reach its conclusion on the material before it. A finding that residence during part of a qualifying period was wholly or mainly for full-time education is therefore reviewable only on that limited basis. An earlier decision under a materially different version of the student-support regulations may provide unreliable guidance where the law has since changed to address criticisms made in that decision.

Hackney refused the applicant student support, stating that during part of the relevant three-year period she had been in the United Kingdom wholly or mainly for full-time education. She maintained that she had come for permanent residence. Newman J considered the judicial review challenge and concluded that Hackney was entitled to reach its factual conclusion, having regard to her full-time GCSE study for an academic year. The applicant renewed her application for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether Hackney’s conclusion was rationally open to it.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Lord Justice Buxton emphasised that the proceedings were not an opportunity to revisit the applicant’s factual account of why she had entered or remained in the United Kingdom. The court’s role was limited to deciding whether Hackney could rationally reach the conclusion it had reached.
2. That threshold was satisfied. The authority was entitled to rely on the applicant’s attendance for a full academic year on a full-time GCSE course as a basis for concluding that, during part of the qualifying period, her residence had been wholly or mainly for the purpose of receiving full-time education. That was a category excluded from eligibility under the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2000.
3. The applicant’s reliance on R v London Borough of Barnet ex p Shah [1983] AC 309 did not provide an arguable basis for intervention. The question whether residence was for educational purposes remained one of fact, in respect of which the court could not intervene merely because it might assess the evidence differently.
4. In any event, conclusions drawn from the 1983 decision were liable to be unreliable for the current regulatory scheme because the law had subsequently been changed to address the criticisms made by the House of Lords concerning the then Student Support Regulations.

The circumstances were not exceptional. The application was refused and the case was not permitted to proceed to an appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Buxton refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Newman J held that Hackney was entitled to conclude that part of the applicant’s residence had been wholly or mainly for full-time education.