Westech College, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A public authority supervising Tier 4 sponsors may restrict, suspend or revoke a sponsor licence where reasonable grounds indicate a risk to immigration control, provided that it complies with its public law duties. The court’s role is supervisory and respects the authority’s relevant expertise.

In judicial review, an unresolved factual dispute is ordinarily determined on the respondent’s evidence where the claimant neither cross-examines the witness nor produces documents demonstrating that the evidence cannot be correct. A sponsor operating premises without required planning permission operates unlawfully. General guidance requiring lawful operation cannot create a legitimate expectation that production of specified minimum documents exhausts the authority’s compliance requirements.

The claimant college held a Tier 4 sponsor licence enabling it to issue confirmations of acceptance for studies. Following an investigation, the UK Border Agency reduced its allocation to zero, suspended its licence and ultimately revoked the licence. Its concerns included a failure to provide requested information promptly, the absence of planning permission and inaccurate records concerning students’ work placements.

The claimant sought judicial review of all three decisions, reinstatement to the register of licensed sponsors and damages. The court considered procedural fairness, legitimate expectation, evidential disputes, adequacy of reasons and whether the decisions fell within the lawful range available to the Secretary of State.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court’s function was to review the lawfulness of the decisions, rather than substitute its own judgment for that of the UK Border Agency. The Agency’s expertise in detecting risks to immigration control warranted respect. It could act before an actual breach occurred where reasonable grounds suggested that a sponsor’s acts or omissions might create such a risk.

2. The zero-allocation decision was lawful. The claimant had failed to ensure that information requested under the sponsor guidance was received by the specified deadline. That failure reasonably raised concern about its record-keeping and ability to monitor students. The prior request identified the obligation, and the guidance disclosed the power to reduce the allocation. Further investigation would also have revealed serious errors in the work-placement records.

3. The suspension was lawful without prior consultation. The claimant lacked the planning permission required for its educational use and had supplied inaccurate information about three students’ work placements. Those matters justified immediate action because they indicated unlawful operation and deficient monitoring. The guidance permitted suspension while enquiries were made, and the claimant was then afforded 28 days to respond.

4. Development requiring planning permission was unlawful when undertaken without it under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The guidance required a sponsor to trade or operate lawfully. Its list of application documents was only a minimum and did not contain a clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation that planning compliance would not be checked. No legitimate expectation therefore arose.

5. The revocation was lawful. On the respondent’s unchallenged witness evidence, the claimant’s later representations had been considered. The decision letter adequately identified the principal reasons: absence of planning permission, inaccurate student-monitoring records and the resulting risk to immigration control. Reasons need address the principal important and controversial issues, rather than every representation. The claimant had shown no substantial prejudice.

6. UKBA was entitled to regard revocation, rather than a lesser sanction, as appropriate. The claimant had received notice of the concerns and an opportunity to respond but supplied no satisfactory explanation. Its unlawful use of the premises and deficient monitoring provided a lawful basis for terminating the licence.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim. Before the rolled-up hearing, a Deputy High Court Judge had granted interim relief. At the hearing, permission was granted to challenge the zero-allocation, suspension and revocation decisions.