School of Business & Commerce Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A sponsor licence may be revoked where an educational institution operates without planning consent, provided the decision falls reasonably within the Secretary of State’s discretion. The absence of consent is capable of being a serious matter, subject to exceptional circumstances such as a minor error about the consent or an erroneous planning decision. Sponsor institutions must also provide full and accurate information about student attendance and compliance. Material non-disclosure and attendance substantially exceeding the permitted level may independently justify revocation. Where the law is sufficiently settled, the court may determine the judicial review without awaiting a pending appeal or Supreme Court decision.

The claimant, a private educational institution licensed under Tier 4 of the points-based immigration system, challenged the suspension and revocation of its sponsor licence. The Secretary of State relied on poor student attendance, inaccurate information about students, a student allegedly lacking valid leave, and the claimant’s operation without planning consent.

The claimant also challenged the lawfulness of the points-based system and sought an adjournment pending the Supreme Court’s consideration of related issues. The central questions were whether the planning position and sponsor-compliance failures rationally justified revocation, and whether the claim should await further appellate guidance.

1. Application refused. The court refused the claimant’s application for judicial review.
2. The court declined to adjourn the proceedings. The law binding on the court was founded on [2011] QB 376. It was sufficiently settled and clear for the claim to be determined, notwithstanding pending Supreme Court consideration of related issues. The discussion in R (Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2012] UKSC 33; [2012] 1 WLR 2208, did not require a different course.
3. The absence of planning consent was determinative. An educational institution operating without the requisite consent was operating unlawfully. That circumstance was sufficiently serious to justify revocation and the Secretary of State’s decision fell reasonably within her discretion. The court followed the approach in R (Westech College) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2011] EWHC 1484 (Admin). The fact that planning consent was later obtained did not make the earlier decision unlawful.
4. The Secretary of State was also entitled to rely on the claimant’s inaccurate attendance information and material non-disclosure. The corrected information showed attendance above 16 per cent, materially exceeding the 11 per cent level regarded as acceptable for an A-rated sponsor. Full and accurate information was essential to maintaining trust and properly applying sponsor policy. The court applied the reasoning in Westech College concerning the substantial duties of sponsors and the power to prevent further sponsorship or revoke a licence where those duties were not met.
5. The evidence showed, on the balance of probabilities, that David Wilson’s leave had expired and that no in-time application for extension had been made. However, the court did not regard that issue as determinative because it had not been explored in oral argument.

The claim proceeded to the Administrative Court after Stadlen J granted permission to apply for judicial review. The application was refused by the High Court on 31 January 2013.