Razak v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A refusal of a work permit application will be unlawful on irrationality grounds only where the decision-maker had no material basis for the conclusions reached. Disagreement with the assessment of an applicant’s skills or experience, or with the evidence that an employer could not fill a post with a resident worker, does not establish irrationality where those conclusions were open on the evidence and within the decision-maker’s discretion. A detailed later decision may also cure an earlier complaint that inadequate reasons were given.

The claimant, a Sri Lankan national and proposed employee of the Falcon Group, challenged the Secretary of State’s refusal of the employer’s application for a work permit. The application had been refused on the grounds that the claimant lacked the relevant skills and experience and that insufficient evidence showed the post could not be filled by a resident worker.

Following the grant of permission, the Secretary of State reviewed the decision and issued a further refusal letter dated 8 April 2009. The claim concerned whether that decision was irrational and whether inadequate reasons had been given.

1. Claim dismissed. The Secretary of State’s decision was not irrational. There was material on which she could properly conclude that the claimant lacked the necessary level of skills and experience and that the employer had failed to demonstrate that the post could not have been filled by a resident worker.
2. The court’s task was to assess whether the conclusions were irrational, rather than to substitute its own view for the Secretary of State’s assessment. The claimant’s disagreement with the reasoning did not show that the conclusions were unavailable on the evidence. The conclusions were open to the Secretary of State in the exercise of her discretion.
3. The April 2009 decision letter gave full and detailed reasons for the refusal. Accordingly, any continuing challenge based on inadequate reasons had no merit following that decision.
4. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the application on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

not stated in the judgment.