Manchester College of Higher Education and Media Technology v Secretary of State for the Home Department

For a mistake of fact to ground judicial review, the claimant must identify an existing fact or evidence which was objectively verifiable, establish that the claimant was not responsible for the mistake, and show that it materially influenced the decision. Where the relevant evidence is principally in the claimant’s possession, the claimant must produce reliable evidence proving the fact. Common-law fairness is fact-sensitive, but it does not ordinarily require a regulator to arrange a further meeting where the claimant has already had repeated opportunities to address an identified issue.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decision prospectively to revoke its Tier 4 sponsor licence. The issue determined was whether the claimant had shown that courses for which it issued Confirmations of Acceptance for Studies led to approved qualifications under the applicable Tier 4 sponsor guidance.

The claimant alleged that the defendant had proceeded on a mistake of fact and that fairness required a face-to-face or round-table meeting to clarify the evidence. The court considered whether the claimant had objectively established the asserted link between each listed course and an approved qualification, and whether further procedural opportunities were required.

1. Mistake of fact. The governing principles were those stated in E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044, derived from R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte A [1999] 2 AC 330. A reviewable mistake required an existing fact or evidence, objectively established and verifiable, for which the claimant was not responsible and which played a material part in the decision-maker’s reasoning.
2. The relevant guidance required every sponsored course to lead to an approved qualification. The court accepted that a single course could lead to both regulated and unregulated qualifications, provided that it did in fact lead to both. It also accepted that the qualifications relied upon by the claimant were approved qualifications. The decisive evidential question was whether each course actually led to one of them.
3. The claimant was uniquely placed to produce the necessary evidence, including course records, links with awarding bodies and evidence of students obtaining the claimed qualifications. Authorisation to offer a course did not establish that successful students would obtain the relevant qualification. The claimant’s documents failed to provide reliable course-by-course proof, and some were inconsistent, post-dated the revocation decision or raised unresolved questions about backdating and inactive courses. No reviewable mistake of fact was established.
4. Common-law fairness. Fairness is fact-sensitive. It did not require a further round-table meeting in this case. The claimant had received numerous opportunities, including extended opportunities after the reasons for revocation had been clearly explained, to identify and prove the relevant course-to-qualification links. The claimant could not complain that further opportunities were required after failing to address the issue.
5. The claim was dismissed. The defendant was entitled to revoke the licence, and costs were awarded to the defendant on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment.