Uruakpa, R (on the application of) v British Council

A hearing conducted by a public body need not follow a prescribed form unless legislation requires one. The essential requirement of procedural fairness is that the person concerned knows the complaints against them and has a meaningful opportunity to respond. Where an application discloses no arguable grounds, the court may refuse it without deciding whether the decision is amenable to judicial review or whether it was brought in time.

The applicant challenged the British Council’s decision to withdraw sponsorship under a scheme supporting medical training in the United Kingdom. Following reconsideration and a hearing, the Council confirmed its decision. The proceedings raised three issues: whether the decision was susceptible to judicial review, whether the claim was out of time, and whether the applicant had a valid complaint about the Council’s conduct.

The Queen’s Bench Division, before Lightman J, rejected the applicant’s arguments. On the renewed application, the Court of Appeal focused on the fairness of the reconsideration hearing and the arguability of the challenge.

The Court of Appeal refused the renewed application.

1. Procedural fairness. Even assuming that the British Council was a public body, there was no statutory requirement that its hearing take any particular form. Fairness required the applicant to know the complaints made against him and to have an opportunity to respond. The material before the court disclosed no breach of that basic requirement.
2. Disposition without resolving preliminary issues. Since there were no arguable grounds for allowing the application to proceed in respect of the Council’s decision confirming withdrawal of sponsorship, it was unnecessary to decide whether that decision was susceptible to judicial review or whether delay would independently have prevented relief.
3. Subsequent events and relief. The applicant’s reinstatement on the medical register did not directly determine the issues before the court. Any claim for recompense for time said to have been lost from his career was outside the subject matter of these proceedings.
4. Costs. The order for costs made below was upheld as one the judge was entitled to make in the circumstances.

Formal order: application refused.

1. Queen’s Bench Division: Lightman J rejected the challenge, holding that the decision was not susceptible to judicial review, that the claim was out of time, and that there was no valid complaint on the merits.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed application was refused. The court found no arguable breach of procedural fairness and did not determine the issues of reviewability or delay.