New London College Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

For interim relief in a public-law challenge, the claimant must show reasonable prospects of success and that the balance of convenience favours relief. Where permission for judicial review has been granted, the prospects requirement will generally be satisfied, leaving the balance of convenience as the principal issue. The public interest must receive substantial weight, particularly where the challenged decision concerns immigration control. In assessing that balance, the court may give greater weight to maintaining effective immigration control through compliant licensed institutions than to the serious commercial and personal consequences of continued suspension. The ordinary American Cyanamid guidelines cannot be applied directly in every public-law case.

The claimant, an education provider for students from outside the European Community, sought interim relief against the suspension of its Tier 4 sponsor licence. The suspension had caused serious financial consequences, redundancies, difficulties for suppliers and adverse effects on students whose immigration leave or examinations were affected.

The claimant relied on remedial steps taken after concerns about attendance records, student contact, recruitment by sub-agents and monitoring immigration status. The Secretary of State relied on a later UK Border Agency inspection which found continuing non-compliance in most of those areas. Permission to pursue the judicial review had been granted by King J. The central issue was whether the balance of convenience justified interim relief pending determination of the substantive claim.

1. Application refused. Interim relief was declined because the balance of convenience favoured the Secretary of State.
2. For interim relief in this public-law context, the claimant had to demonstrate both reasonable prospects of success and that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction. The grant of permission for judicial review meant that the first requirement was effectively met, so the court concentrated on the balance of convenience.
3. In public-law cases, substantial weight must be given to the public interest. The ordinary American Cyanamid guidelines cannot necessarily have direct application. Immigration control was a particularly weighty public interest, especially where it was exercised through colleges holding sponsor licences.
4. The court accepted that continuation of the suspension had very serious consequences for the claimant, including threats to its business, staff reductions, effects on suppliers and disruption to students. Those consequences did not outweigh the public interest because the later inspection still found the college broadly non-compliant. The Secretary of State’s confidence in the claimant’s performance of functions connected with immigration control had not been restored by the remedial measures.
5. The judge indicated that the decision involved the exercise of discretion and that the Court of Appeal would be reluctant to interfere. The issue of the day’s costs was ordered to be determined as part of the substantive proceedings, with the defendant succeeding in principle on that issue.

• High Court (Administrative Court): King J granted permission to pursue the judicial review. Mr Justice Cranston refused interim relief and indicated that any appeal would face the difficulty that the decision was discretionary.