NB, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An immigration decision notice is not invalid merely because it lacks a signature where the governing legislation requires written notice but does not expressly require signature. An express signature requirement for a special method of deemed service supports that construction. Even if signature were required, the notice and signed reasons may be read as a composite decision. A signature requirement implied from the legislation would be directory where the recipient received the decision and acted on it, including by appealing.

NB’s leave to remain as a student was curtailed after refusal of an application under the Fresh Talent Scheme. Later applications were refused on the basis that her leave had already been curtailed. She sought judicial review, arguing that the July 2008 immigration decision was invalid because the principal notice was unsigned.

HHJ Thornton QC refused permission, holding that the notice and signed reasons formed a composite document and that the legislation imposed no signature requirement. Burnton LJ refused permission on the papers. On renewal, the Court of Appeal considered whether section 4 of the Immigration Act and the Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003 required a signature and, if so, whether its absence invalidated the decision.

Application refused. Longmore LJ held that the proposed challenge could not succeed.

1. Section 4 of the Immigration Act did not require an immigration decision notice to be signed. Regulation 4 of the Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003 required written notice, but did not prescribe a signature.
2. Regulation 7(2), which expressly required a signed notice for deemed service in specified circumstances, supported the conclusion that an ordinary written notice under regulation 4 did not require a signature.
3. In any event, the notice and the signed reasons for refusal were properly treated as a composite decision. The fact that the notice referred to supporting documents meant that signature of the relevant supporting document would have been sufficient even if a signature had been required.
4. Further and independently, any signature requirement implied into section 4 or regulation 4 would be directory rather than mandatory. NB had received the notice and had responded by lodging an appeal. It would therefore be untenable for the decision to collapse because of the missing signature.
5. The argument that the reasons letter had been created or backdated when faxed in 2010 was speculative and was rejected. The application was refused because the proposed appeal would inevitably fail.

• Administrative Court (Queen’s Bench Division): HHJ Thornton QC refused permission for judicial review at an oral hearing.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Burnton LJ refused permission on the papers. On renewal, Longmore LJ refused the application: [2011] EWCA Civ 887.