R70 World Ltd., R (on the application of) v Visa Section, British Deputy High Commission, Lagos & Ors

A judicial review claim is generally unavailable where the person directly affected by an immigration decision has a statutory right of appeal which has not been exercised. A party with an indirect commercial interest cannot circumvent that statutory scheme by bringing proceedings on a longer timescale. Where no statutory appeal exists, the claimant must nevertheless show sufficient interest in the decision. A claim is not necessarily academic merely because the relevant event has passed, where the issue may recur and the claimant seeks removal of an adverse precedent.

R70 World Ltd applied for judicial review of refusals by the British Deputy High Commission in Lagos relating to entry clearance for five musicians contracted to perform at a London concert and an accompanying agent. The first refusal concerning the musicians was withdrawn because it applied the visitor provisions rather than the work-permit provisions. Revised refusals were issued under paragraphs 128 to 135 of the Immigration Rules. The musicians had a statutory right of appeal but did not exercise it. The agent had no statutory right of appeal. The court considered whether the claim was academic, whether the company could bypass the statutory appeal route, and whether it had sufficient interest in the agent’s visitor-visa application.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court rejected the argument that the proceedings were academic. Although the concert date had passed, similar events were expected to recur and the claimant sought removal of what it regarded as an adverse precedent.
2. The principle in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Preston [1985] AC 835 applied. Where the person directly affected by an immigration or entry-clearance decision has a statutory right of appeal, that route must ordinarily be used before judicial review, save in the most exceptional circumstances. The company could not circumvent that principle by presenting the claim itself, even though it had contracted with the musicians and had a commercial interest in their attendance.
3. The company lacked sufficient interest to challenge the refusal of the accompanying agent’s visitor visa. The agent was not the company’s employee, and, if the decision were to be challenged, the natural claimant would be the agent himself.
4. The court made no findings on the merits of the alleged unfair treatment, bias or errors in the entry-clearance decisions. The preliminary objections disposed of the claim before those issues arose. The claimant was ordered to pay two thirds of the defendant’s costs, reflecting the defendant’s success on the statutory-appeal point while taking account of the permission previously granted and the unsubstantiated academicity objection.

Permission for judicial review was granted on the papers by Burton J on 27 September 2005. The substantive claim was then dismissed by the High Court (Administrative Court).